Incels:

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Because Peterson isn’t saying that, and after pages and pages of me stating that you still act as if he is. Honestly this is so ridiculous that the reading comprehension on this thread is so disturbingly low. What is so difficult to comprehend here?

He is.

He’s not really subtle in positing that “enforced monogamy”  as having better outcomes than people being allowed to be non-monogamous in terms of sex, or romantic relationships in general.

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And then there are pages and pages of explaining what he meant, including his own explanation. Honestly you were too lazy to even go back one page to read what I wrote that I had to quote myself, don’t expect you to put in any more effort

And there are pages and pages where people recognize what he meant—and still conclude what he’s saying really dangerous.

Enforced monogamy can and often does end with a lot bad shit happening—mostly towards women—without going as far literal arranged marriage and government issued girlfriends.

[Zorral]

HOI said 'somebody' ought to help these poor fellows become more attractive.  So I suggested he do it.  And he laughed, boys and girls.  He. Laughed. Ya we get it like we've gotten it all along hoi believes it's the responsibility of women to do this.  Not him.  He isn't digging the graves or feeding the orphans either who are dying of herd immunity.

Not only am I past having any patience for men demanding women fix society and fix them and clean up everything, I'm also way past having any patience for anybody who thinks white people are superior to the rest of the people of the world, that all kinds of people were not in Roman or medieval England, that LGBTQ people are to be kept out of everything, and for people who will not wear mask and for people who think herd immunity is a good idea.  I've, well, I've had it. May the bend to justice come yesterday.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Week said:

Their attractiveness does not correct their anti-social behavior of demanding sex and looking to women solely as sex-bots.

If sex is all they can understand then the only solution is the Model XQJ-37 Nuclear Powered Pansexual Roto-Plooker", who looks like a "Chrome-Plated Piggy Bank with marital aids stuck all over it".

I'd suggest perhaps an education on valuing women for reasons beyond sex which will, often, lead to sex. You are trying to blunt a symptom and not the disease - misogyny.

Eh. That may entail touching upon things like “toxic masculinity” which can evolve into teaching boys to be more sensitive which is girly which is bad.

So No.
Men and boys automatically/genetically have to see more women choosing to have with someone else as unfair to them.

It’s simply instinctive to see women less as people and more as notches in their belt.

So the cause of misogyny are some attractive men having more sexual partners than some less attractive men and that enraging some men.

Which is why when stricter monogamy has been enforced the less misogyny there was.

See since women were shamed for any pre-marital sex they kept quiet about itso the fragile male ego was able to stay strong and thus misogyny was nonexistent.

Sarcasm.

[Week]

6 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Haha misogyny is a symptom? Of fucking what)

... deserving it??? Because ... incels aren't attractive because they hate women?

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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

[...]
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.

Except you are in fact putting a judgment on the world, by adopting the language of incels.

Describing people who have a lot of partners as "winners" is a rather twisted perspective on human relationships. Scientifically speaking (medically and biologically), you only need a single partner with whom you are happy (including sexually) to "win." Sex is fun, but at the end of the day, there is only a very small number of people who will truly matter to you, because they have made you happy for long periods of your life (and for most humans, that very small number is 1, regardless of the number of sexual partners they've had).

You were able to point out that "[incels] really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy," thus suggesting that you are aware that this isn't true. So why do you stoop to using their elements of language if you are aware that they are mistaken?
Unless you're just having fun,

[KingintheNorth4]

4 hours 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.

It goes deeper than sex. A prostitute could offer their body free of charge and it still wouldn't alter their warped views.

[Zorral]

27 minutes ago, KingintheNorth4 said:

It goes deeper than sex. A prostitute could offer their body free of charge and it still wouldn't alter their warped views.

This isn't aimed at the poster quoted above.

But, you know, I'm also losing patience with how often posters invoking (female) prostitution as a solution, whether a failed solution or something that proves something or other. Because again, this is work, this is labor, and like most very real work and labor, such as pregnancy and birth, raising infants, cleaning house, it isn't considered work worthy of respect -- and often even for the sex workers -- the pay they should get.  Or that sex workers also have choice. They may not want to deal with incels for all kinds of reasons.

[DanteGabriel]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.
 

 

I know discussion has moved well along by now and I have no desire to engage with the rest of HoI's usual disingenuous defense-that-isn't-defense of a scumbag-who-isn't-a-scumbag, but I really wanted to compliment you on your novel dissection of modern dating by way of Revenge of the Nerds. It also evokes a small amount of the "cool/groovy/square" monologue from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. So, thanks for at least making the hogwash a modicum more interesting.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Except you are in fact putting a judgment on the world, by adopting the language of incels.

Describing people who have a lot of partners as "winners" is a rather twisted perspective on human relationships. Scientifically speaking (medically and biologically), you only need a single partner with whom you are happy (including sexually) to "win." Sex is fun, but at the end of the day, there is only a very small number of people who will truly matter to you, because they have made you happy for long periods of your life (and for most humans, that very small number is 1, regardless of the number of sexual partners they've had).

You were able to point out that "[incels] really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy," thus suggesting that you are aware that this isn't true. So why do you stoop to using their elements of language if you are aware that they are mistaken?
Unless you're just having fun,

I’ve noted this before, but talks of sympathizing with incels often quickly devolve into the concerned party trying to vindicate their very childish and simplistic views about dating, sex, and women

Though often like here the attempts just makes it all the more silly.

Here for example. A man shouldn't referred to as a winner because he had sex with more women than a lot of other guys.

If he finds someone to make him happy, who he makes happy, that’s fine, and it takes a childish asshole to see such a person as a loser.

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

This isn't aimed at the poster quoted above.

But, you know, I'm also losing patience with how often posters invoking (female) prostitution as a solution, whether a failed solution or something that proves something or other. Because again, this is work, this is labor, and like most very real work and labor, such as pregnancy and birth, raising infants, cleaning house, it isn't considered work worthy of respect -- and often even for the sex workers -- the pay they should get.  Or that sex workers also have choice. They may not want to deal with incels for all kinds of reasons.

To be clear I don't think female sex-workers would fix incels.

They won't and can't.

Because it's not really about sexual release to most of them. It's about control and domination.

And in regards to your point of sex-work not being considered work worth respect that's true. ”Whore” is still a frequently used insult towards women because although much of society applauds men who sleep around for fun, women are still wrongly, expected to follow a different. To be a virgin until they shack up with one man, yet at the same time chastised as prudes if they're not sexually open.

 

[karaddin]

10 hours ago, 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.

Oh haven't you heard? If a person doesn't explicitly type out the literal declaration you can't draw conclusions that they mean something. Doesn't matter if literally everything they say both implies it through association and through the logical direction of what they've said, you're simply being unfair to them!

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

This isn't aimed at the poster quoted above.

But, you know, I'm also losing patience with how often posters invoking (female) prostitution as a solution, whether a failed solution or something that proves something or other. Because again, this is work, this is labor, and like most very real work and labor, such as pregnancy and birth, raising infants, cleaning house, it isn't considered work worthy of respect -- and often even for the sex workers -- the pay they should get.  Or that sex workers also have choice. They may not want to deal with incels for all kinds of reasons.

I agree with your point, but just want to differentiate the point I've made earlier in this thread which I hope didn't come across like I was suggesting this. If it were actually about the need for sex then there are multiple ways that they would already be using to address this need, which includes purchasing the services of sex workers. There are a lot of people that do have their needs and are already happy clients of such services, although unfortunately far too many places declare it illegal and punish the women providing them. If someone is primarily in need of physical intimacy, that can also be eased if not entirely addressed (at least by anyone that isn't rather rich) through the same serrvices. 

The fact that these assholes not only don't view any of these as legitimate options to address their needs but have rabid contempt for even the idea, and hatred and scorn for the women that provide sexual services, both demonstrate that its not about sex for them and that even if it were about sex we need to protect sex workers from them. Not treat sex workers as cannon fodder to be thrown at them.

On a related note - I of course can't compel anyone to do what I ask, but if you want your post to come across as respectful of sex workers I'd ask you to use "sex worker" rather than "prostitute". The latter has a history of somewhat loaded usage and I at least tend to assume certain attitudes correlate with its usage. If on the other hand you are one of a sadly large spectrum which encompasses some feminist positions all the way through to the religious far right and wish to shout your contempt from the rooftops then go ahead and knock yourself out.

[Heartofice]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Describing people who have a lot of partners as "winners" is a rather twisted perspective on human relationships. Scientifically speaking (medically and biologically), you only need a single partner with whom you are happy (including sexually) to "win." Sex is fun, but at the end of the day, there is only a very small number of people who will truly matter to you, because they have made you happy for long periods of your life (and for most humans, that very small number is 1, regardless of the number of sexual partners they've had).

Pointing out that the dating world is a competition shouldn't be particularly controversial. If you were interested in a girl, there isn't some magical fairy putting you together with her, you are more than likely in competition with a bunch of other guys to get her attention, all of whom might be smarter, funnier, better looking, richer, taller and cooler than you. And when there is competition there are winners and losers. That is an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact. It just doesn't dress it up by using terms like 'there is someone out there for everyone'.

I get where you are coming from though, we shouldn't be calling men who sleep with loads of beautiful women 'winners'.. but you can understand why a lot of men would feel a little bit of jealousy at those guys, especially if their experiences of sex are one handed.

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You were able to point out that "[incels] really believe that having lots of sex will make them happy," thus suggesting that you are aware that this isn't true. So why do you stoop to using their elements of language if you are aware that they are mistaken?
Unless you're just having fun,

I'm aware that this isn't true because I've had enough sex in my life to know it isn't true. If I was a virgin living in my parents basement and someone came up to me and told me that sex isn't everything and won't make me happy why on earth would I listen to them? Like I said, it's like telling a starving man that food 'isn't all that'. 

As I said, the only way to solve this problem is to put these guys on a more positive path, help them to work on themselves, make them better people, more attractive so that someday girls might find them attractive. Only then are they going to figure out that it wasn't something to spend all of your time worrying about. 

 

[Relic]

3 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Pointing out that the dating world is a competition shouldn't be particularly controversial. If you were interested in a girl, there isn't some magical fairy putting you together with her, you are more than likely in competition with a bunch of other guys to get her attention, all of whom might be smarter, funnier, better looking, richer, taller and cooler than you. And when there is competition there are winners and losers. That is an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact. It just doesn't dress it up by using terms like 'there is someone out there for everyone'.


 

That's exactly the WRONG way of looking at it.  Dating usually about finding someone you are compatible with. It could be sexual compatibility you are both looking for, if you are out for a short term fling, or a "grander" sort of compatibility for a longer relationship. It's not a fucking contest. It is in no way a competition, and if you think of it as a competition you are going to come across like one of the creepy Peterson devotees, and you're going to end up yanking your dick in the shower while thinking thoughts of vengeance upon the world. 

TL;DR - You're wrong. The "magical fairy" is called chemistry. 

 

[Heartofice]

25 minutes ago, Relic said:

 

TL;DR - You're wrong. The "magical fairy" is called chemistry. 

 

So what do you think 'chemistry' is? 

Chemistry is really just a series of value judgements one person is making about another person. They are in their head figuring out if someone attractive or not. And they are comparing you to everyone else, so in reality you are in competition with a lot of other people. 

But the point isn't to view dating like it's a competition, just to understand that it is one, and if you want to do better in your dating life and gain happiness from it then you need to improve yourself. 

The problem the world view you have proscribed, is that it leads to a lot of guys not understanding why women don't like them, thinking that they don't need to work on themselves and that eventually that special someone will come along. That is a bull***t way of thinking and deeply unhelpful. It's why you get those horrendous nice guy simps who think that girls should sleep with them because they share a mutual interest in some indie movie or because she was wearing a manga t-shirt, and why so many guys get 'best friended' by women they have massive crushes on.

Compatibility is largely about attraction, we are all attracted to people we are not compatible with, it happens all the time, but we rationalise it in our heads. We all know someone who has rationalised a terrible relationship simply because their other half is just really hot. 

Incels need to learn that they are getting rejected because they aren't attractive to almost the entire female population, there is no point waiting around for someone with incredibly low standards to pity shag / date them in the hope of some mythical chemistry. The only solution is to understand the cynical nature of dating, forget the disney myths that have been pumped into them, and use it to their advantage  to improve their lives and move out of the hideous category.
s
 

[Week]

26 minutes ago, Relic said:

That's exactly the WRONG way of looking at it.  Dating usually about finding someone you are compatible with. It could be sexual compatibility you are both looking for, if you are out for a short term fling, or a "grander" sort of compatibility for a longer relationship. It's not a fucking contest. It is in no way a competition, and if you think of it as a competition you are going to come across like one of the creepy Peterson devotees, and you're going to end up yanking your dick in the shower while thinking thoughts of vengeance upon the world. 

TL;DR - You're wrong.

 

His successful scenario sounds like the Pickup Artist and the failure is no change (incels that have not made themselves attractive enough for women).

Seems to be mental gymnastics in order to avoid 1) admitting oneself is wrong 2) admitting that western chauvinism is bad. 

Jesus christ that last post is all kinds of confused bullshit. I'm not sure what one gets out of continually posting screeds that are dunked on. Hence, arf arf.

[Relic]

1 minute ago, Week said:

His successful scenario sounds like the Pickup Artist and the failure is no change (incels that have not made themselves attractive enough for women).

Seems to be mental gymnastics in order to avoid 1) admitting oneself is wrong 2) admitting that western chauvinism is bad. 

 

Yup. I'm done. I've dealt with enough of this garbage with IRL dudes i know (one very close ex-friend in particular who is a Peterson devotee and somehow manages to never get the sex/romance/love he desires) to bother debating it online any further. 

[HoodedCrow]

Relic is wise.

How about finding an ordinary looking woman who has things in common with you, and practice being interested in her, and seek intimacy in conversation first? Find out what qualities are important to you.( humor, kindness, George Martin, political leanings, computer savvy, sweetness, honesty, religion, whatever intrigues you and / or comforts you) Figure out your own qualities.There are books on this! Authentic Happiness is a good lay book. “What to say after you say hello” or a similar book would help. I imagine there are social skills apps but I don’t know. She might like you and she will seem much more attractive then.Or just look to get laid. There are a much smaller group of women who just want a hook up, and if you are angry and have a bad attitude to start with, any woman with sense isn’t go for it. I’m sorry for people wanting to date with apps, because of the marketing aspect, as it sounds brutal. The other option is a chicken ranch where the women don’t want a relationship at all, but who could show you the physical ropes...in the case of the pros it will cost x. It probably won’t help loving intimacy skills though:)

Watch Romances and not porn, but think of yourself as discovering a new country. Include intimacy skills with fantasy. I’m afraid there may be self improvement and homework involved and it’s all possible. I had a Ph. D friend who read a book on dating and all of a sudden the missing dating clicked in. He looked like Bobby Kennedy, so it wasn’t that.  It was passivity, coldness, and a lack of empathy or basic human interest. He changed his attitude and technique! He went for someone in his specialty after he took beginner Jive dancing which included a colleague who wasn’t happy with her boyfriend! Being a decent listener is attractive.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well I think we all learned a lot here.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Pointing out that the dating world is a competition shouldn't be particularly controversial. If you were interested in a girl, there isn't some magical fairy putting you together with her, you are more than likely in competition with a bunch of other guys to get her attention, all of whom might be smarter, funnier, better looking, richer, taller and cooler than you.

The exact reverse is true. Except in some circumstances (that are either specific or limited in time), one is never in competition with others.
If that were the case, or if the world worked like that, most of us would be incels, since there is almost always someone "smarter, funnier, better looking, richer, taller and cooler than you."
But I'm short, not particularly handsome, my humor is quesntionable, I'm definitely not rich, was never cool... and yet I'm not an incel. What figures?
The fallacy here is linked to time. Over time, one could argue that humans "compete" with others for mates or sex. In reality, in the here and now, it is almost never the case.
In other words: on some level, perhaps I am competing with a bunch of other guys for a girl's attention. But that is totally irrelevant if the other guys are not in the room. As long as I get a chance to connect with the girl I want, it doesn't matter what the theoretical competition for her is, or was. The moment I talk to her, it is entirely on me to establish a meaningful connection.

It's not just that the "competitive perspective" is wrong, it is also counter-productive. Anyone obsessing about "competition" is basically shooting themselves in the foot. If your view of dating is based on aggregate data, that is, long periods of time or large numbers of individuals, then you will prove unable to deal with the here and now, you will never understand the skills necessary to seduce someone, because that has absolutely nothing to do with competition.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

But the point isn't to view dating like it's a competition, just to understand that it is one, and if you want to do better in your dating life and gain happiness from it then you need to improve yourself.

Improving oneself in order to be better at dating does not require seeing dating as a competition.

I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve, but you made me lose what modicum of sympathy I had for incels.

If the root of the problem is what you describe, then they deserve neither sympathy, nor help. I mean, if you want to see the world as a competition, don't come whining if you fail at it, that's your own damn fault.

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, karaddin said:

"sex worker" rather than "prostitute".

Which I did do, deliberately, later in the post, along with making most, I think, of the same other points that you made in your post..  

But it could well be I wasn't as clear as I should have been because my feeling are / were so intensely involved so my fingers on the keyboard were desperately trying to keep pace that.

 

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

As I said, the only way to solve this problem is to put these guys on a more positive path, help them to work on themselves, make them better people, more attractive so that someday girls might find them attractive.

So why won't you do that?