Incels:

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

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.

 

Sorry that part was directed at the rest of the thread and I didn't make that clear, I did note the language you used so that definitely wasn't intended for you.

You're right that you were making the same point as most of the second half of my post, I wanted to call out that the point I'd made was separate from saying that sex workers shouldn't be seen as a solution to incels and fell down the rabbit hole of being wordy/repetitive.

[Xray the Enforcer]

this thread makes me hate straight people. I mean, more than usual. 

[Fury Resurrected]

15 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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
 

Dude- you have absolutely no idea what heterosexual women think or find attractive. Every post you’ve made on this topic and many you’ve made on others show that you have almost as skewed and weird a view of what women are like as the incels being discussed- in fact you are parroting many of their gross ideas.

[Crixus]

They've said several times they're married, fwiw.

I agree with all the replies to HOI's posts, and may I just echo how weird I find the notion that women always go for men who are better off socioeconomically. Wish someone had told me that before I decided to marry a dickhead whom I ended up supporting for ages before finally dumping his arse! 

Incels are obsessed with 'ranking' women based on their looks and have unrealistic ideas about 'scoring 10s' instead of having more realistic expectations, and I feel this definitely plays into the situation to an unhealthy degree. I wish that were unique to incels but sadly, I've come across a shit-ton of men who are decidedly unattractive physically, yet seem to feel they're entitled to gorgeous women, and constantly criticise women based on their looks while utterly failing to acknowledge their own physical limitations. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.

Eh. Not really no.

The worldview would have men accepting women not going with them as unfair or a mark to qualify them as a loser.

Your worldview would bake in shame of being a loser when a person they're attracted to doesn't reciprocate their affections.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.

Eh no.

What gets nice-guys is social messages that pushes sex as a natural reward for being nice to women, or that it's unfair for women *choosing* to be having sex with some men more than others.

And because it's a flattering way to sum up why people don't like you.

It’s why we have so many misogynistic assholes claiming to be nice guys even they groan about woman having too much agency and rights.

It’s because they're ”nice”. 

I don't think not seeing dating as filled with winners and losers for why some guys don't have their romantic feelings reciprocated by a female friend.

21 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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'. 

Lol, dude, we talked about this. Repeatedly.

Seeing a Sex-worker is an option for most incels.

So long as they have 60-70 bucks and could practice a modicum of politeness(treat a femoid as people), they could get laid.

Hell even seeing each other is an option.

The desire for Sex is not a good analogy to the actual necessity of having food.

If a person doesn't eat food they die of starvation.

If a man doesn't have sex he doesn't die.

Incels can pay sex-workers same as anyone. They don't. Because sex isn't their main desire. It's domination of a woman to highlight their superiority.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Incels need to learn that they are getting rejected because they aren't attractive to almost the entire female population,

You know they already believe this.

17 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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.

So not actually changing any of their initial thoughts on women or the purpose of dating.

Just encouraging them to try Pick up Artistry, to get sex.

Doesn't really address the misogyny in their worldview. 

At best it’d make already creepy sexist assholes, just a slightly different shade of creepy sexist asshole.

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

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.

But women are allowed to get with men they find more attractive than others.

Isn't that unfair?

But though yes what's demonstrated inceldom isn't being fueled as a result of most men not being able to have a  romantic relationships, or even the lack of the ability to get sex.

But some  men’s anger that women being allowed to choose who’d they’d have sex with, and it not being them enough.

[Ran]

A mod note:

Folks, if you can't stand communicating with someone civilly, be the bigger person and put them on ignore or otherwise disengage in discussion.

[Zorral]

Again, please, stop advocating female sex workers as any solution to the pathetic mess these sorts of males are.

Sex workers are as entitled to agency as any other person. They have the human and employment right to say no too.

Advocating sex workers as solution enforces and enables human sex trafficking, coercion and abuse of sex workers -- just as, ultimately, it enables and enforces slavery.  A declaration that "socially enforced/mandated monogamy" recall, started this latest round.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Again, please, stop advocating female sex workers as any solution to the pathetic mess these sorts of males are.

Sex workers are as entitled to agency as any other person. They have the human and employment right to say no too.

Advocating sex workers as solution enforces and enables human sex trafficking, coercion and abuse of sex workers -- just as, ultimately, it enables and enforces slavery.  A declaration that "socially enforced/mandated monogamy" recall, started this latest round.  

I wasn't advocating sex-workers as a solution to incrls.

I was simply pointing to the existence of sex-workers to demonstrate why incels’ grievances are not really about them wanting sex.

Having 70$ and a polite attitude would be enough for many sex workers to agree to see someone.

Incels hate them anyway.

I'm not saying sex-workers would change them for the better.

I'm not saying sex would.

I'm just saying sex wouldn't, and most know that.

On 11/16/2020 at 8:00 AM, The Great Unwashed said:

I absolutely feel some empathy for young men who get caught up in the incel movement, but the frustrating thing is that the philosophy they're buying into is more destructive to them than the imaginary "system" that's being sold to them either as a grift or as a recruitment tool for some nefarious ideology.

Yep. 

There's a lot of overlap incels and white-supremachists for instance.

Both would like a world where women(particulary white-women) would be utterly subservient.

On 11/16/2020 at 8:00 AM, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm sorry, but your framing of the argument concedes a lot of ground to incels. It first presumes that "sporty jock" and "manga nerd" are mutually exclusive categories. 

It's only true if ones knowledge of people relies on the thinnest, stereotypes of ”nerds” and ”jocks” found in pop-culture.

A guy who plays sports and likes something that can be considered geeky, is not especially hard to find.

 

[Starkess]

On 11/15/2020 at 2:28 PM, 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.

I can't speak to the statistics of this, but in my personal experience (of my own and friends), the causality here isn't so clear. A lot of times when a woman is earning more than her male partner, the man is the one who is upset by it and it causes issues in the relationship.

[Guy Kilmore]

25 minutes ago, Starkess said:

I can't speak to the statistics of this, but in my personal experience (of my own and friends), the causality here isn't so clear. A lot of times when a woman is earning more than her male partner, the man is the one who is upset by it and it causes issues in the relationship.

And, also, there are other societal reasons that a woman of equivalent socio-economic standing would be earning less than their counter part.  (All of them bullshit mind you, but still in existence....and changing as indicated by the above.)

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Starkess said:

I can't speak to the statistics of this, but in my personal experience (of my own and friends), the causality here isn't so clear. A lot of times when a woman is earning more than her male partner, the man is the one who is upset by it and it causes issues in the relationship.

And many women give up on their career advancement to support their husbands even when they are the ones with a higher income as a result of these issues you mention. At bare minimum you need to be looking at income stats when the relationship starts, but there's still going to be a whole lot of other variables at play - all the bullshit Guy was referring to.

[Starkess]

3 hours ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Wanting to have a career at all put a significant stress on my first marriage. In counseling, he said “once you got a master’s degree, I thought you’d come to your senses and want to stay home.”

My ex once said that when we moved in together he assumed that I would pick up more of the cooking and cleaning because I would "just want to"...uh no. 

[S John]

Though I am ahead at the moment, for much of our relationship my wife made more money than me. Honestly if she overtakes me again I’ll throw her a fucking party. I don’t get why anyone would be upset about it. You know what’s great?  Having disposable income, being able to save, make investments for retirement, make home improvements, go on vacation, avoid debt, not dreading your car payment, etc, etc.

Preferring that the outside world (which doesn’t give a flying fuck about you anyway) sees one as the primary breadwinner, vs having actual greater financial security that is to the benefit of everyone in the household is the dumbest shit I have ever heard in my life. Especially once you’ve committed to marriage or a long term partnership. At that point you are pretty much a unit financially and what’s best for the unit is going to benefit everyone. 

[Zorral]

What's even worse is how many guys want their partner to make an eff-wad of money, and then hate them for it, while when they aren't making eff-wad money, they get angry and hate them for it too.

Women can never win, no matter what.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At the risk of sounding like an incel apologist, I feel compelled to point out that there are very real and long-enduring societal standards of "man as provider" - that's not to give anyone a pass, but these beliefs also don't spring out of a vacuum.

While we should take steps not vindicate misogynistic worldviews of the world I would say this is a fair point to bring up.

Society does generally frame it as just a given that men should be the more economically powerful one in a relationship as well as fill all the domestic chores.

I read a interesting New York times story about single women in japan.

A big fear for a lot of the women interviewed is that they knew getting married would entail them having to give up much of their career prospects , and social actives to get married.

There’s good reason why women initiate the process of divorce most of the time while in relationships outside of marriage men and women break up with each other at the same rate.

https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_gender_of_breakup.pdf

 

[Rippounet]

9 hours ago, S John said:

Though I am ahead at the moment, for much of our relationship my wife made more money than me. Honestly if she overtakes me again I’ll throw her a fucking party. I don’t get why anyone would be upset about it. You know what’s great?  Having disposable income, being able to save, make investments for retirement, make home improvements, go on vacation, avoid debt, not dreading your car payment, etc, etc.

Preferring that the outside world (which doesn’t give a flying fuck about you anyway) sees one as the primary breadwinner, vs having actual greater financial security that is to the benefit of everyone in the household is the dumbest shit I have ever heard in my life. Especially once you’ve committed to marriage or a long term partnership. At that point you are pretty much a unit financially and what’s best for the unit is going to benefit everyone. 

Maybe I'm speaking for myself here (a bit), but I don't think it's about image or money, but about chores and family life.

Except in some specific cases, earning more money entails more work, which means the partner earning less is also the one who will do more at home, like cooking, cleaning, or taking care of the kids.
While most guys today don't mind sharing such tasks evenly, finding yourself in a situation where you have to do more than than half of those tasks can be a different story. The mere perspective of that happening is enough for many men to run away.
And of course, the worst-case scenario is if this wasn't anticipated, i.e. if the couple did not properly discuss how the household tasks could be unevenly shared/split, and/or if this was not the initial situation/deal.

On some level, the issue isn't even about sex. Women who work a lot don't like having to take care of the household on top of that either. Which is why many females with a demanding career choose not to have kids.
The only difference is that males tend to not really consider the possibility of having to deal with both their career and their kids because their partner has better opportunities/pay (it's still not that common), and that when the perspective appears, they tend to react very poorly. A different way of putting it is that guys seldom realise/understand that their partner can end up working a lot too.
OTOH, if things are clear from the start (i.e. from the beginning it's clear that the female will spend more time at work, and the male will take more time at home), it may work. In fact, some guys are totally ok with that. But again, it's usually when things were clear from the start.

In the long run, as more females become high-earners, the logical consequence is that fertility rates will drop, because males will not develop the nurturing side that females have in the past millenia.
Please note, that doesn't mean that I see females as naturally nurturing (I think much less of it is innate than we tend to believe), just that men will strongly resist the move from patriarchy to matriarchy (obviously, many men are already rejecting equality, which is telling).
And climate change will mean that a drop in fertility rates is a good thing anyway, and our civilization will porbably collapse before we can achieve a matriarchy, so it's all moot really.

[S John]

8 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

At the risk of sounding like an incel apologist, I feel compelled to point out that there are very real and long-enduring societal standards of "man as provider" - that's not to give anyone a pass, but these beliefs also don't spring out of a vacuum.

I understand that but I think it’s foolish to get caught up on the financial aspect of providing. That is just one of (hopefully several) strong qualities that a man can bring into a relationship. And in most of these cases the man probably does also work, even if they are out-earned. Especially today where I think the majority of households are two-income.

Say a woman makes 100k and the man makes 60k. There’s a big difference between a 100k household and a 160k household, meaning that the contribution of the man in this scenario isn’t peanuts - it a major factor in the overall financial health of the household and the household would not be the same without that contribution. And you could use any two numbers you want just about. If a household is at 30k and 50k, well 80k is still a helluva lot better than 50! I think it’s moot that the woman happens to be the higher earner in a scenario like that, which I believe is probably the most common situation.

Now considering a scenario where you’re wife or girlfriend is totally blasting you in salary, like 200k to 30k or something where your contribution is not particularly significant. First of all, congratulations.** But secondly, there are still a number of traditionally masculine roles to be fulfilled. You can be the tsar of the lawn, the mover of heavy objects, the fixer of broken appliances, builder of useful objects, vehicle maintenance guru, the primary physical defender of the household, etc, etc. Income is an important thing, but it’s only one thing.
 

**why isn’t a situation like this more commonly viewed as an opportunity to pursue literally whatever you want career wise? There are a lot of interesting jobs out there that I would love to do but frankly they don’t pay enough. If one were in a situation like the above it would be a huge opportunity to pursue your own career fulfillment considering the need for a major financial contribution is minimized and the risk of failure is mitigated. I’m just having a hard time finding a practical downside here.

[Guy Kilmore]

29 minutes ago, S John said:

I understand that but I think it’s foolish to get caught up on the financial aspect of providing. That is just one of (hopefully several) strong qualities that a man can bring into a relationship. And in most of these cases the man probably does also work, even if they are out-earned. Especially today where I think the majority of households are two-income.

Say a woman makes 100k and the man makes 60k. There’s a big difference between a 100k household and a 160k household, meaning that the contribution of the man in this scenario isn’t peanuts - it a major factor in the overall financial health of the household and the household would not be the same without that contribution. And you could use any two numbers you want just about. If a household is at 30k and 50k, well 80k is still a helluva lot better than 50! I think it’s moot that the woman happens to be the higher earner in a scenario like that, which I believe is probably the most common situation.

Now considering a scenario where you’re wife or girlfriend is totally blasting you in salary, like 200k to 30k or something where your contribution is not particularly significant. First of all, congratulations.** But secondly, there are still a number of traditionally masculine roles to be fulfilled. You can be the tsar of the lawn, the mover of heavy objects, the fixer of broken appliances, builder of useful objects, vehicle maintenance guru, the primary physical defender of the household, etc, etc. Income is an important thing, but it’s only one thing.
 

**why isn’t a situation like this more commonly viewed as an opportunity to pursue literally whatever you want career wise? There are a lot of interesting jobs out there that I would love to do but frankly they don’t pay enough. If one were in a situation like the above it would be a huge opportunity to pursue your own career fulfillment considering the need for a major financial contribution is minimized and the risk of failure is mitigated. I’m just having a hard time finding a practical downside here.

And you hit the nail on the head with some of the insidious issues with Toxic Masculinity.  I was going to say something similar.  Throughout our marriage, my wife and I would frequently exchange primary earner status.  We have different roles in the house.  Heck, she grew up in Duluth with her contractor, mountain man dad and is better at home repair and outdoor stuff than I will ever be.  She also is a professionally trained chef and can grill better than I can even pretend too.  The thing is, in a household, there is a ton of shit that needs to get done and plenty of labor to get divide for everyone to contribute; not to mention that every little bit of income helps.  It is a little more money to spend on the things that everyone needs and wants. 

Then men get locked into some ideas of how this is SUPPOSED to be, and build up an identity around it.  It's a straight jacket that makes a dude one dimensional and fragile.  And now a short video of someone who makes the same point, but funnier.

[S John]

12 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

And now a short video of someone who makes the same point, but funnier.

 that was great. You know I also have no idea what a cosmopolitan tastes like. I’ve just assumed it was sweet and sweet drinks tend to make me feel like I’ve got rocks in my stomach. Can’t do Margaritas, for example, despite liking the flavor of them.  Anyway, off to google what’s in a cosmo

[Guy Kilmore]

8 minutes ago, S John said:

 that was great. You know I also have no idea what a cosmopolitan tastes like. I’ve just assumed it was sweet and sweet drinks tend to make me feel like I’ve got rocks in my stomach. Can’t do Margaritas, for example, despite liking the flavor of them.  Anyway, off to google what’s in a cosmo

That video is what made me go actually order a cosmo.