Incels: A Result of Technology?

[ThinPicking]

You seem to live in a care bears world. Have you heard of prostitution? Gold diggers?
The graph sentence is a humorous reflection on your sentence with the pyramid.

Ouch. But still. Your world is at first in your mind is it not. A perspective you take will bleed out.

I don't know how your reductionist description of human relationships could relate to my use of the term "pyramid scheme" in relation to poverty

If you're labelling yourself with this lie you should probably stop doing it. Reading these books may put you on a good footing to move forward.

Social Media Censorship

View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1579109113073917955

raypeatforum.com

 

[Regina]

They probably didn't. A few weeks ago I was walking outside when a young guy came my way on "my" side of the sidewalk, staring at his phone. I kept walking and watched whether he would notice me at some point. He didn't. I stepped aside when I was only about 3 meters away from him. He still didn't look at me. It was almost scary.

Yes. That's the zombie thing.
That would always happen in Chicago. I'd have to step into the mud or a planter at the last few seconds to avoid the automaton walking zombies.

(I guess I do not know what an "incel" is).

 

[TobyBjorn]

Hasn't western* society been straining for decades -- indeed centuries in an effort to produce sexless men and women? Many religeous traditions view celibacy as an ultimate ideal of asceticism and a path towards enlightenment. Why would the "nofap" conversation so often lead to suggestions that successfully refraining will lead to self mastery, awakening, and new heights of joy and apparently spiritual power? Discussions of other health and nonsexual abstinence topics are rarely so full of manic promise. As a society it seems that we have agreed, or failed to differ, that sex is undesirable by default and allowed only by exception. When sex is positive it is often overly positive, described with an air of sacredness even in secular and otherwise materialistic cultural settings. A society that takes sex too seriously and has a bipolar manic depressive spiritualized view of sexuality will surely get what it is asking for and have a lot of loud flagrant kinks and a lot of totally celibate people and a relative dearth of people who are happy with their circumstances.

*and alas, eastern

 

[grapes]

Hasn't western* society been straining for decades -- indeed centuries in an effort to produce sexless men and women? Many religeous traditions view celibacy as an ultimate ideal of asceticism and a path towards enlightenment. Why would the "nofap" conversation so often lead to suggestions that successfully refraining will lead to self mastery, awakening, and new heights of joy and apparently spiritual power?

No western religious traditions don't promote celibacy, only in extreme cases like for monks. "Nofap" neither.

 

[TobyBjorn]

No western religious traditions don't promote celibacy, only in extreme cases like for monks. "Nofap" neither.

Correct. Celibacy is not prescribed for all, it is held up as a spiritual ideal, which contrasts to all things carnal.
Pope Paul VI speaks of celibacy as a “precious jewel”

Indeed, neither does NoFap promote celibacy. It does seem at times to promise spiritual enlightenment. I see this as one example that we are in a culture that is really uncomfortable with sex and which (sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously) views controlling sex as a sort of ultimate goal.

 

[lvysaur]

Not entirely, T levels have been dropping, E levels probably rising, and women maturing faster in recent times.

 

[baccheion]

Apparently women got the right to open a bank account in their own name in 1975. Before, they would even more purely need financial support. Further, they en masse entered the workforce.

Only about 0.66% of males are 5'10" - 6'2", top 1 out of 6 attractiveness (7.75/10+??), 5.76"+, and STD free.

10% are 5'8" - 6'5", top 1 out of 2 (5.5/10+), 5.12"+, STD free, and 85+ IQ. With earnings at median or above, only 5% of males before it goes negative. The last viable one will be 5'8", 5.5/10, 5.12", STD free, 85 IQ, and at the median salary.

That is, only few males are contenders for flings or longer-term pairings.

If women had their way, less than 1% of males would get laid casually.

I recently did a calculation that showed me as 1 out of 36 at a college with 28,000 undergrads (12,000 males and 16,000 females). That is, only 36 or less out of 12,000 males would be over 6 feet, over 6 inches, STD free, and in the top 1 out of 4 attractiveness. It'd be 48 if using 5'11" - 6'1" instead. There are at least 5-10x as many women that are "just" 10/10.

 

[Runenight201]

Apparently women got the right to open a bank account in their own name in 1975. Before, they would even more purely need financial support. Further, they en masse entered the workforce.

Only about 0.66% of males are 5'10" - 6'2", top 1 out of 6 attractiveness (7.75/10+??), 5.76"+, and STD free.

10% are 5'8" - 6'5", top 1 out of 2 (5.5/10+), 5.12"+, STD free, and 85+ IQ. With earnings at median or above, only 5% of males before it goes negative. The last viable one will be 5'8", 5.5/10, 5.12", STD free, 85 IQ, and at the median salary.

That is, only few males are contenders for flings or longer-term pairings.

If women had their way, less than 1% of males would get laid casually.

I recently did a calculation that showed me as 1 out of 36 at a college with 28,000 undergrads (12,000 males and 16,000 females). That is, only 36 or less out of 12,000 males would be over 6 feet, over 6 inches, STD free, and in the top 1 out of 4 attractiveness. It'd be 48 if using 5'11" - 6'1" instead. There are at least 5-10x as many women that are "just" 10/10.

Idk dude my friend in high school was 5’4” and sucked at school but he kicked **** at soccer and had a fling with just about every attractive girl in our grade.

 

[ursidae]

Apparently women got the right to open a bank account in their own name in 1975. Before, they would even more purely need financial support. Further, they en masse entered the workforce.

Only about 0.66% of males are 5'10" - 6'2", top 1 out of 6 attractiveness (7.75/10+??), 5.76"+, and STD free.

10% are 5'8" - 6'5", top 1 out of 2 (5.5/10+), 5.12"+, STD free, and 85+ IQ. With earnings at median or above, only 5% of males before it goes negative. The last viable one will be 5'8", 5.5/10, 5.12", STD free, 85 IQ, and at the median salary.

That is, only few males are contenders for flings or longer-term pairings.

If women had their way, less than 1% of males would get laid casually.

I recently did a calculation that showed me as 1 out of 36 at a college with 28,000 undergrads (12,000 males and 16,000 females). That is, only 36 or less out of 12,000 males would be over 6 feet, over 6 inches, STD free, and in the top 1 out of 4 attractiveness. It'd be 48 if using 5'11" - 6'1" instead. There are at least 5-10x as many women that are "just" 10/10.

reminds me of this calculator

Female Delusion Calculator

What are the chances to find the man of your dreams? - Live search on US survey data.

igotstandardsbro.com

 

[-Luke-]

I recently did a calculation that showed me as 1 out of 36 at a college with 28,000 undergrads (12,000 males and 16,000 females). That is, only 36 or less out of 12,000 males would be over 6 feet, over 6 inches, STD free, and in the top 1 out of 4 attractiveness. It'd be 48 if using 5'11" - 6'1" instead. There are at least 5-10x as many women that are "just" 10/10.

Perhaps I didn't understand you calculation method, but that sounds unlikely to me (please correct me if I have some thinking error). 1/4 of 12,000 males would be 3,000. Since there is probably a fairly high, positive correlation between attractiveness in males and height, a pretty high ratio of those 3,000 should be over 6 feet. 6 inches (we are talking about penis size, right?) doesn't sound like a huge (pun semi-intended) "accomplishment" either. I don't know about STD rates. But according to your calculation, only a little more than 1% of those 3,000 guys combine those three traits. Is the rate of STDs so massive at US colleges?

That would mean that only the basketball and football team got laid, but nobody else.

 

[TobyBjorn]

Apparently women got the right to open a bank account in their own name in 1975. Before, they would even more purely need financial support. Further, they en masse entered the workforce.

Only about 0.66% of males are 5'10" - 6'2", top 1 out of 6 attractiveness (7.75/10+??), 5.76"+, and STD free.

10% are 5'8" - 6'5", top 1 out of 2 (5.5/10+), 5.12"+, STD free, and 85+ IQ. With earnings at median or above, only 5% of males before it goes negative. The last viable one will be 5'8", 5.5/10, 5.12", STD free, 85 IQ, and at the median salary.

That is, only few males are contenders for flings or longer-term pairings.

If women had their way, less than 1% of males would get laid casually.

I recently did a calculation that showed me as 1 out of 36 at a college with 28,000 undergrads (12,000 males and 16,000 females). That is, only 36 or less out of 12,000 males would be over 6 feet, over 6 inches, STD free, and in the top 1 out of 4 attractiveness. It'd be 48 if using 5'11" - 6'1" instead. There are at least 5-10x as many women that are "just" 10/10.

Premise is sound, and a statistical model is useful for men to ponder regarding this female attraction question. Considering that incels are relatively uncommon it is suggested that there are additional factors involved. I regard female sexuality to be as much (or more) about the female herself as it is about the male partner. It is not one or the other, though it can sometimes be. The simultaneity of factors influencing female mate selection is why men so often feel that they struggle to understand it.
The female exists in herself, and her decisions in the context of her social framework.

 

[animalcule]

reminds me of this calculator

Female Delusion Calculator

What are the chances to find the man of your dreams? - Live search on US survey data.

igotstandardsbro.com

I get it, but that calculator is also kinda trash. Almost every permutation will put you at "aspiring cat lady," unless you accept all ages, married/unmarried, and obese w/no money.

Age range: 20-45
Not married. Not obese.
Height: 5'8"
Race: White
Income: $70k. (roughly the median US income)

"According to statistical data, the probability a guy of the U.S. male population ages 20 to 45 meets your standards is
2.2%" ie, "Aspiring cat lady."
But if you shorten the age range to 35-45, the probability actually increases to 2.3% (I guess bc younger men have lower incomes, so even though you're removing 15 yrs bracket of potential men, probability is slightly better. But this isn't what one would expect intuitively when one decides to become PICKIER about age and date from a smaller total pool.).

But what if you say, "Ok, I'll date a man at almost ANY AGE, so I'll increase the age range to 70." Well, according to the calculator, your odds of a match (with all other variables the same) are going DOWN to 2.0%. Still an "aspiring cat lady."

"Well jeez, I guess I'm too concerned about income! Fine, I'll date a man who makes less than the average US income, and lower my income requirement to $45k/year. That ought to really grow the pool." Well ... barely. Your odds increase to 3.7%, but you're still an "aspiring cat lady."


"Hm! Alright, well, I guess it doesn't matter if he's the same race as me or not, so I'll date a man of any race, who makes less than the average US income, who can be up to 70 years old, who's 5'8" or taller, so long as he isn't obese and isn't married. These are reasonable standards, right??" Nope, your odds increase to 5.4%, but you're still an "aspiring cat lady."


So what do you have to do to be "down to earth" about your expectations? 1) Date obese people (odds = 10%), OR 2) Date married men (odds = 17.8%).


(And if you're thinking, "Hey! Don't be heightist! The problem is you care too much about height!" Well, even if you lower the height to 5 feet tall - but not obese and not married - the odds only increase to 8.7% and you're still an "aspiring cat lady.")

"LOWER YOUR STANDARDS LADIES!" According to this calculator, women had better be prepared to lower their standards to the floor. Which is absolutely not what I'd encourage any girl/woman I care about to do.

 

[animalcule]

Played around w/the calculator more. It pays to be pickier about age - the odds do increase when you limit your age range to 20-45 or so. But still, hard to clear the "aspiring cat lady" mark.

 

[grapes]

The female exists in herself,

And the male doesn't exist in himself? Why?

 

[TobyBjorn]

And the male doesn't exist in himself? Why?

I am suggesting a contrast between the female and male perspectives, and in that sense a man tends to intuitively seek an external identity ideal to strive for, such as duty, honor, excellence or manliness. In his sexuality a man thinks about and focuses primarily on aspects of the woman. Men can make the mistake of thinking the female is the mirror reciprocal, experiencing sex as the joy and worship of masculinity just as a man enjoys the feminine. While women certainly can and sometimes do enjoy and sexually “worship” the masculine, compared to men they experience sex as joy and rapture in their own bodies, their focus is on themselves, and their enjoyment of the man is connected to his focus on her. Not exclusively so, but much more so than a man is expecting or hoping for.

This is part of why plenty of seemingly unattractive men do in fact get laid, despite the statistical hellscape described in recents posts.

 

[grapes]

Men can make the mistake of thinking the female is the mirror reciprocal, experiencing sex as the joy and worship of masculinity just as a man enjoys the feminine.

You ignore a phenomenon of "groupie" , which is entirely feminine and proves this wrong.

This is part of why plenty of seemingly unattractive men do in fact get laid, despite the statistical hellscape described in recents posts.

First, you have to make difference between those who get sex for free and those who a providers. Next, males' attractiveness is not understood by females the same as by males. There are many males which other males would think as attractive for females but are incels, and at the same time males successful with women which other men would find ugly.

 

[TobyBjorn]

You ignore a phenomenon of "groupie" , which is entirely feminine and proves this wrong.

First, you have to make difference between those who get sex for free and those who a providers. Next, males' attractiveness is not understood by females the same as by males. There are many males which other males would think as attractive for females but are incels, and at the same time males successful with women which other men would find ugly.

Groupies might have some notions about how a relationship with their celebrity crush would make that groupie look to her peers.

Yes, sexual attraction is nuanced and variable. There are indeed many and diverse reasons why a man might end up an incel.

 

[grapes]

Groupies might have some notions about how a relationship with their celebrity crush would make that groupie look to her peers.

Exactly, females seek man seeked by other females. Not a man who is focused on her.

 

[baccheion]

Perhaps I didn't understand you calculation method, but that sounds unlikely to me (please correct me if I have some thinking error). 1/4 of 12,000 males would be 3,000. Since there is probably a fairly high, positive correlation between attractiveness in males and height, a pretty high ratio of those 3,000 should be over 6 feet. 6 inches (we are talking about penis size, right?) doesn't sound like a huge (pun semi-intended) "accomplishment" either. I don't know about STD rates. But according to your calculation, only a little more than 1% of those 3,000 guys combine those three traits. Is the rate of STDs so massive at US colleges?

That would mean that only the basketball and football team got laid, but nobody else.

10% are 5.9x inches plus. 15% are over 6 feet. 25% are attractive at a college by liberal estimation. 1 out of 5 (look it up) have an STD. There is some correlation, but they effectively multiply together.

 

[-Luke-]

10% are 5.9x inches plus. 15% are over 6 feet. 25% are attractive at a college by liberal estimation. 1 out of 5 (look it up) have an STD. There is some correlation, but they effectively multiply together.

Oh, I thought you meant 6 feet or over, but your calculation basis doesn't include 6 feet but would start with 6'1, right? I also underestimated the inches in my head, since that isn't a metric I use regularly.