Incels? Porn? What do you think?

[Pseudonym]

Every time I read something like this I ask myself, is this actually true? I've become extremely skeptical when it comes to ideologies conserning men and women. Especially when they involve some kind of reasoning based on "evolution" which itself is somewhat misunderstood by the general public. I think it's important to understand that while evolution is great descriptive scientific theory, ideologies that explain world or prescribe what is good or bad based on their interpretation of evolution are not science and imo often completely wrong.

The other thing that I often see is this focus on women, men, statistics, averages... I would just like to remind you all that you won't marry the mathematical concept of average. You marry an individual person, and the variability among individuals and what they like or don't is so great that focusing on and analyzing groups of people doesn't necesarily help as much with finding individual partner as some might think.

Also, no matter who you are, there are most likely people who find you attractive. You just don't know because you haven't had an opportunity to learn that. So it might not be a bad idea and try to create these opportunities.

Anyways, don't get it twisted. I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking about the big picture and society.

I just think that some people would benefit more if instead of interpretting graphs, they just texted that one girl or guy that they find cute, and see if the feeling is mutual.

[book_guy]

Interesting that this topic has re-generated interest two years later. I did read the two recent responses.

I think the "what women want" explanations are beside the point in a lot of ways, and are probably only half right. A lot of evolutionary psychology tries to explain a lot, but in my opinion fails. I won't go into it here, about why I disagree. But there's a lot I disagree with. Women wanting men who are the top of the social hierarchy -- totally disagree. Women "needing" their anxieties to be alleviated -- totally disagree. Women "choosing" to not mate with nice guys even though they also choose to surround themselves with nice guys -- totally disagree. Women wanting a "good provider" in the form of a nice guy; but also wanting a "tough guy" for their side hustle -- totally disagree. These are all phenomena from Western European and North American dating lifestyles from the latter half of the Twentieth Century or more recently. They come true SOMETIMES and only BECAUSE they are the preferred rules of our culture. They are all contradicted by folklore and mating styles from other historical periods and other cultures. I think Pseudonym is seeing roughly the same thing I am, in different guise -- "is this actually true?" is a healthy way to approach the received wisdom. I've read Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" -- nearly totally disagree. I've seen Desmond Morris' various documentaries about "what women want" and "how mating works" -- totally disagree (and BTW, does Desmond Morris look like the sort of guy you'd like to take dating advice from?).

Nevertheless, there are kernels of truth out there, some of them worth investigating. I don't reject everything the evo-psych people say just because they say it. Usually I reject it because they have no experimental method behind their supposed science, and therefore should more rightly be considered speculators rather than scientists.

But what does this have to do with the Incels about whom I first inquired? (It's OK for the thread to go off on different tangents, I don't mind.) Only a bit. I think the Incel phenomenon is a sad thing; and I think it's a BIGGER thing than it used to be. It doesn't really influence me -- I'm not angry at women in the way the typical Incel claims to be; I don't believe that I somehow "deserve" sexual activity, in the manner that the typical Incel seems to think he "deserves" it. But I do think our society has gotten to a point where we are damaging young men. We cause them harm of some sort (not necessarily the sort which Incels think has been caused to them); we know the harm is happening, simply on the basis of the fact that we hear a lot of cries of pain from a lot of young men. "Ouch" they're saying, "someone stubbed my toe!" Well, I look at the toes and say, "Umm, your toes seem OK to me, but I hear that you are saying 'Ouch' anyway."

[edger477]

Well, for anything you don't want to believe the proof will be irrelevant and you will only seek and integrate the proof for things that fit into your world view. For example, if this was recent phenomena how would you explain that our genetic code has twice as much female ancestors than male ancestors? They mated with fewer males only because half of them died in wars? Half sounds like awful lot of population to never mate just because of wars or shorter lifespan. Is it more than half incels today?

Of course, it can be argued that those who did not reproduce might have had access to sex but their wives reproduced with someone else, who happens to already has a child (because genealogy only can say about reproduction), that would still not explain why.

The mating rituals and practices might be very different today, and especially in the west the relationship might have turned into transactional relation, these things are only causing collapse of western civilization (as it should happen when evolution tests something that is not better), but do not really change portion of population who are not having access to sex. Only thing that does is contraception, and that might skew it even more towards top of hierarchy (so leaving even more incels) but that is purely western phenomena. East has its own, due to femicide in areas where having male offspring was considered "better" there are dozens of millions of men who don't stand a chance finding a woman because there is many more of them than women. This is another new source of incels, but I doubt that it will significantly change the ratio of male to female ancestors from 33/66.

For those affected it might look like only they are affected, but sooner they realize it was always like that, the sooner is possible to do something about it (even if that action is deciding to go their own way and invest energy into something they find more fulfilling or important).

[satn00b]

Hm, I wonder if I should chime in as this seems to be a rather controversial topic. I'll try to give my opinion without being hurtful with anyone.

For context: I have a wife, I have children, I have sex. I was never angry though I was an incel until my early thirties - instead I have always adored women. My incel life came mostly from within. Being too shy and financially unstable is a bad combination, for me these two were also intertwined, though insecurities were more than just "I don't have money".

Back to topic.

I think evolutionary women are much more inclined towards men with power and good socioeconomic standing. This has - until very recently, maybe 50 or 70 years - been the most successful strategy to ensure survival for the women and their offspring. This even goes further back, why else would (most) women find athletic guys more attractive? Raw physical power was an evolutionary benefit for a very, very long time (as it is in animals - in most social species one male produces all offspring in a group). The same also works for male preferences of course, most guys prefer fit women - because we're genetically programmed to do so. They are more likely to bear healthy children and be able to support them thus ensuring genetic continuity.

This also explains the ratio edger477 mentions (I didn't check the theory behind).

Many of the other behaviors book_guy mentions may have to do with the female sexual revolution that started with the availability of contraception. Suddenly, women were not in danger to die (not a hyperbole) every time they had sex. It gave them opportunities they never had before.

And nowadays they don't have to choose anymore. They can have multiple men as (in western countries) they are the powerful ones in the male-female relationship. Their biology isn't as hardwired towards sex as the male. So they control the supply while the demand is always high. Simple as that. When women in other parts of the world will free themselves from oppression and/or social conventions, the same will happen. Simply because it benefits them more, and all living beings are inherently selfish.

What can shift the (im-)balance? I see mainly 2 things.

First, the rise of very human-like AI-controlled "sex" dolls (they will be able to do much more). These will be perfected in the next years and will probably be an acceptable solution for most incels. They will free men from the need to be with a woman (which has its own downsides).

Second, a socioeconomic shift. As our society gets older, the nearly constant boom of the years from 1950 to about 2018 will come to an end. We will lack workers while at the same time more has to be paid for the elderly and sick. We'll probably see a resurgence of (physically) hard labor that will be well-paid. Men will probably be the ones to step up to the task and earn well. At the same time jobs without or with little inherent value (like most influencers, Youtubers, bloggers, onlyfans models, actors etc.) will slowly disappear (except a very small, very well-paid elite). This will tilt the balance towards above average income males, possibly regardless of other factors like looks.

Just my 2 cents. May be totally wrong

[throwawayacct]

There's something pretty darkly humorous about incels and incel-adjacents talking about what women want. And there is a fair bit of absolute bunk, "redpill" speak in this thread.

Before the few I'm talking about chime in with "no you don't understand" and further shifting an unsound and invalid position to something they feel they can defend - I'm not debating or arguing with that flavor of bullshit, but I will tell you to scrub your fucking social media feeds and recognize what you have fallen prey to.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Post-truth The oldest power structures in human history designed to subjugate not only women but pin men into an imagined struggle - at best. But lately? The online movement is inexorably linked to the rise of fascism. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2020/09/07/ ... roud-boys/ And it's absolutely horseshit that in 2024 someone has to say "And fascists are bad." No, it's not "just an opinion to argue" as one user in this thread also commented (paraphrasing) on TU's Discord before they ran off with their tail tucked.

While I acknowledge typed text on forums isn't how people communicate IRL and speaking, it does appear some of the folks who are certain of their positions, lack some social nuances and understandings of interpersonal communication. You can break this cycle by getting out of the room and away from your screen, and meeting/interacting with real people. Touch grass.

At the heart of it all, are people who are unable to empathize with someone who isn't just like them. Some in this thread are projecting their own feelings, insecurities onto another (women). Rejection is part of life. I've been rejected hundreds of times, tens of thousands if you include my career in sales. You move forward.

The world is not governed in binaries. When you speak of "women are ____" you are reducing half the world's population, with different cultural upbringings, social pressures, individual backgrounds and individual preferences - to a monolithic entity. "No I'm not!" you'll argue - I'm calling it now before I even hit "submit". Except I'm not going to argue with you over something you will only reach through self-reflection.

edit: I don't say this as an outsider to misery, pain, and loneliness. I very easily could have fallen into the trap myself. It took years of wrestling with my own lack of self-esteem and externalizing validation, with the help of therapists. You can climb out of the abyss, it takes time and a lot of effort, and progress is SLOW. But getting there is worth it.

I am not saying "you're lonely and it's all your fault". However I am saying you can do something about it. I am not saying to join the rank and file, join a gym and all the other things that are frequently leveled at incels - not everyone needs to be like everyone else. Some people are genuinely happy alone. This is an outlier, though, and they reached that point through self-reflection, awareness, and more often than not- therapy.

What I am telling you is that if you are resonating with the redpill incel garbage and the neo-masculine shit put out by Walsh, Tate, Shapiro, Peterson, Crowder, et. al. you are being misled, convinced, and continually reinforced in a way that *will only make you unhappy*. They are not a community. They are not there to help you become a whole person and fulfilled in your life. They are only there to feed their own egos and wallets, on your misery.