The Manhood Trap

[Emily Lake]

Would this be all women, or just the sexually desirable ones? Maybe there could be a government regulated rating issued and all women rated over a 7(the number can be adjusted according to the incel population numbers) are prohibited from taking a job which pays over a certain annual amount.

It might be more efficient if we simply made it illegal for attractive single women to own shoes.

Oooooh, I need a tissue. I laughed so hard I cried.

 

[Emily Lake]

I only have a few years of experience as a payroll employee. It’s not lucrative, but it’s just as much freedom as it is slavery IMO.
As an employer/business owner I have found the level of obligation to be far more urgent and compelling, and even stifling. Much labor is forced, unanticipated and devoid of imposed limits, legal or otherwise. All of which lends a feeling of enslavement that exceeds that of being employed.
YMMV

I simply don't have the risk appetite to be self-employed. Even when I was making minimum wage, I preferred the predictability to the uncertainty.

 

[Toni]

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Toni, you're assuming that millions of years of evolution somehow had modern culture in mind when they happened.

The evolutionary pressures that *might have* resulted in the particular shape of human penises has nothing at all to do with the behavior of women in current society. We can recognize that our ancestors might have evolved a means to displace competing sperm and not be deeply offended by it.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

You get that Loren is talking about an aspect of physical evolution that happened eons ago in our very, very distant past, don't you? It has nothing at all to do with US history, and certainly nothing to do with who the hell sits in office for a four year span of time.

Heck, if someone talks about the lack of melanin in caucasians being an environmental adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, thus advantaging those who can process more vitamin d, you wouldn't go off on a bender about how we just had a black president and black people can have vitamin d deficiencies if they live in the north too, would you?

It’s the attitudes I’m protesting. Plus the absolute ignorance of anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

And I doubt that our human ancestors engaged in gang bangs routinely. Humans do not go into heat, so as a strategy of ensuring your sperm wins, it would really suck.

Personally I think some men like the idea of gang bangs and like the idea that they can control their sperm without the inconvenience of wearing a condom. Evolution be damned.

 

[Emily Lake]

As for evolutionary pressures, selection of a human mate no longer depends on demonstrating any particular fitness advantage. For some reason, evolution has made us a species for which very little of our sex is specifically for procrastinating. This has led to unbelievably complicated interactions which have so many factors, no one can know them all, or which ones matter in the moment.

I'm not an expert by any means, and I think I already posted something about this but I can't remember and I don't feel like going backwards

Generally speaking, when the species is environmentally fit, sexual selection exerts more pressure than natural select does. Humans are very well adapted to our environment... mostly because we said screw it and adapted our environment to our needs. So natural selection isn't particularly powerful in terms of changes within our species. At this point, it's all sexual selection driving the boat.

That said, I still maintain that clean, nice, and eager, will always be near the top of the list.

At least as long as women continue to be attracted to those features . I think it's unlikely to change, but who knows, maybe we'll decide that stank-ass filthy dudes are the hottest of the hot.

Alternatively, you get cultures going the opposite direction and treating women like chattel, and robbing us of the ability to select our own mates. Personally, I'm not seeing that as a long-term beneficial strategy for the species... but I admit I'm a bit biased.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Toni, you're assuming that millions of years of evolution somehow had modern culture in mind when they happened.

The evolutionary pressures that *might have* resulted in the particular shape of human penises has nothing at all to do with the behavior of women in current society. We can recognize that our ancestors might have evolved a means to displace competing sperm and not be deeply offended by it.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

You get that Loren is talking about an aspect of physical evolution that happened eons ago in our very, very distant past, don't you? It has nothing at all to do with US history, and certainly nothing to do with who the hell sits in office for a four year span of time.

Heck, if someone talks about the lack of melanin in caucasians being an environmental adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, thus advantaging those who can process more vitamin d, you wouldn't go off on a bender about how we just had a black president and black people can have vitamin d deficiencies if they live in the north too, would you?

It’s the attitudes I’m protesting. Plus the absolute ignorance of anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

Most of the time, I'd be right there with you... but I'm not seeing the attitude from Loren than you seem to be seeing.

And I doubt that our human ancestors engaged in gang bangs routinely. Humans do not go into heat, so as a strategy of ensuring your sperm wins, it would really suck.

I mean... how far back in our family tree are you looking? If you're only looking to the past 50K years or so where we have anthropological evidence of human societies, probably not. If you're looking at the past 300K years of homo sapiens sapiens I think that might get a little tougher to defend. If you include ancestors in the same genus, now you're talking several million years. How long ago are you assuming that the human penis evolved?

And more to the point, who said anything about gang bangs other than you? You're the one who has interpreted this through the lens of a porno. I don't see any reason to assume that none of our distant ancestors could possibly have had multiple male partners within a relatively short period of time. Hell, there are plenty of women today who will have sex with more than one guy in the same day, and do so willingly.

My point here is that you're errantly applying modern cultural views onto ancestors millions of years ago, then berating Loren for talking about that million-year-old evolutionary development. It's one thing to take the position that you don't buy the hypothesis, it's quite another to attack Loren for referencing someone else's work that he found plausible.

Personally I think some men like the idea of gang bangs and like the idea that they can control their sperm without the inconvenience of wearing a condom. Evolution be damned.

Condoms didn't exist millions of years ago so... *shrug*

 

[pood]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

Would you call decreasing female empowerment to the extent it at least makes economic sense for them to partner with a male person sexual slavery? Would you call increasing the female incentive for the biological father of her offspring to help raise their children sexual slavery?

Both of those solutions decrease female empowerment without making them into sexual slaves IMO.

So those are atleast 2 solutions I would not call sexual slavery. Perhaps you still disagree. But if you do still disagree that begs the question why you would not call everyone who labors at a job a slave? Most everyone in the world is incentivized to do things we would not otherwise do just for our survival.

Let’s deconstruct this a bit. What do you think “decreasing female empowerment” would accomplish, exactly, and how would disempowerment be done?

You seem to think the problem for incels is that women with too much “power” have no incentive to mate with them, or perhaps with anyone at all.

If true, that is good, not bad. No woman owes any man sex — and vice versa. An empowered person of any sex has more say over his/her/their circumstances, which is desirable.

But the real problem for incels is not that women have too much power. It is that women find them repulsive. That’s not going to change if women are disempowered.

Of course not all incels are repulsive. Some just have bad luck, and can’t meet the right person at the right time. But life is tough.

But maybe in a small number of cases these disempowered woman would find that it makes economic sense to partner with a person whom they otherwise would not. How is that anything other than — gussied up prostitution? Or, really, slavery?

And how do you propose that this disempowerment be done?

It sounds very much like you want to take women back to the 1950s and even earlier. There was a time that in many states, women lacked the same rights as men. Many were barred from having their own back accounts, for example — they could only have joint accounts with hubby. Is that what you want?

At one time women had few job options beyond secretary, teacher, or nurse. Is that what you want?

Go back far enough, before 1920, and women could not even vote. Is that what you want?

Do tell what, exactly, what you want, and how you think this disempowerment can be effectuated.

 

[Toni]

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Toni, you're assuming that millions of years of evolution somehow had modern culture in mind when they happened.

The evolutionary pressures that *might have* resulted in the particular shape of human penises has nothing at all to do with the behavior of women in current society. We can recognize that our ancestors might have evolved a means to displace competing sperm and not be deeply offended by it.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

You get that Loren is talking about an aspect of physical evolution that happened eons ago in our very, very distant past, don't you? It has nothing at all to do with US history, and certainly nothing to do with who the hell sits in office for a four year span of time.

Heck, if someone talks about the lack of melanin in caucasians being an environmental adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, thus advantaging those who can process more vitamin d, you wouldn't go off on a bender about how we just had a black president and black people can have vitamin d deficiencies if they live in the north too, would you?

It’s the attitudes I’m protesting. Plus the absolute ignorance of anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

Most of the time, I'd be right there with you... but I'm not seeing the attitude from Loren than you seem to be seeing.

And I doubt that our human ancestors engaged in gang bangs routinely. Humans do not go into heat, so as a strategy of ensuring your sperm wins, it would really suck.

I mean... how far back in our family tree are you looking? If you're only looking to the past 50K years or so where we have anthropological evidence of human societies, probably not. If you're looking at the past 300K years of homo sapiens sapiens I think that might get a little tougher to defend. If you include ancestors in the same genus, now you're talking several million years. How long ago are you assuming that the human penis evolved?

And more to the point, who said anything about gang bangs other than you? You're the one who has interpreted this through the lens of a porno. I don't see any reason to assume that none of our distant ancestors could possibly have had multiple male partners within a relatively short period of time. Hell, there are plenty of women today who will have sex with more than one guy in the same day, and do so willingly.

My point here is that you're errantly applying modern cultural views onto ancestors millions of years ago, then berating Loren for talking about that million-year-old evolutionary development. It's one thing to take the position that you don't buy the hypothesis, it's quite another to attack Loren for referencing someone else's work that he found plausible.

Personally I think some men like the idea of gang bangs and like the idea that they can control their sperm without the inconvenience of wearing a condom. Evolution be damned.

Condoms didn't exist millions of years ago so... *shrug*

The only reason I can see for a human penis to evolve to scoop out other men’s ejaculate in order to ensure his sperm fertilizes the egg is in a gang bang situation. Which genuinely only makes sense if humans undergo a heat, which they do not.

Logic contradicts that supposition even if greater than a cursory knowledge of female anatomy and conception escape us.

 

[laughing dog]

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Toni, you're assuming that millions of years of evolution somehow had modern culture in mind when they happened.

The evolutionary pressures that *might have* resulted in the particular shape of human penises has nothing at all to do with the behavior of women in current society. We can recognize that our ancestors might have evolved a means to displace competing sperm and not be deeply offended by it.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

You get that Loren is talking about an aspect of physical evolution that happened eons ago in our very, very distant past, don't you? It has nothing at all to do with US history, and certainly nothing to do with who the hell sits in office for a four year span of time.

Heck, if someone talks about the lack of melanin in caucasians being an environmental adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, thus advantaging those who can process more vitamin d, you wouldn't go off on a bender about how we just had a black president and black people can have vitamin d deficiencies if they live in the north too, would you?

It’s the attitudes I’m protesting. Plus the absolute ignorance of anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

Most of the time, I'd be right there with you... but I'm not seeing the attitude from Loren than you seem to be seeing.

And I doubt that our human ancestors engaged in gang bangs routinely. Humans do not go into heat, so as a strategy of ensuring your sperm wins, it would really suck.

I mean... how far back in our family tree are you looking? If you're only looking to the past 50K years or so where we have anthropological evidence of human societies, probably not. If you're looking at the past 300K years of homo sapiens sapiens I think that might get a little tougher to defend. If you include ancestors in the same genus, now you're talking several million years. How long ago are you assuming that the human penis evolved?

And more to the point, who said anything about gang bangs other than you? You're the one who has interpreted this through the lens of a porno. I don't see any reason to assume that none of our distant ancestors could possibly have had multiple male partners within a relatively short period of time. Hell, there are plenty of women today who will have sex with more than one guy in the same day, and do so willingly.

My point here is that you're errantly applying modern cultural views onto ancestors millions of years ago, then berating Loren for talking about that million-year-old evolutionary development. It's one thing to take the position that you don't buy the hypothesis, it's quite another to attack Loren for referencing someone else's work that he found plausible.

Personally I think some men like the idea of gang bangs and like the idea that they can control their sperm without the inconvenience of wearing a condom. Evolution be damned.

Condoms didn't exist millions of years ago so... *shrug*

The only reason I can see for a human penis to evolve to scoop out other men’s ejaculate in order to ensure his sperm fertilizes the egg is in a gang bang situation. Which genuinely only makes sense if humans undergo a heat, which they do not.

Logic contradicts that supposition even if greater than a cursory knowledge of female anatomy and conception escape us.

I suspect the “scooping “ explanation of the human penis is pure speculation on the part if people with way too much time on their hands.

 

[Politesse]

Ohmyfuckinggod: You seem to believe that women regularly line guys up and let them ejaculate, one after another.

Toni, you're assuming that millions of years of evolution somehow had modern culture in mind when they happened.

The evolutionary pressures that *might have* resulted in the particular shape of human penises has nothing at all to do with the behavior of women in current society. We can recognize that our ancestors might have evolved a means to displace competing sperm and not be deeply offended by it.

That’s a mirror you’re looking into. Honestly, Loren, you are being willfully ignorant. US history is filled with the names of people who grew up in poverty and rose to great heights because of their intellectual talents and hard work. And we have an extremely prominent example of someone born into great wealth and privilege who is no one’s idea of an intelligent man sitting in the Oval Office right now—or golfing or on the toilet. Who knows.

You get that Loren is talking about an aspect of physical evolution that happened eons ago in our very, very distant past, don't you? It has nothing at all to do with US history, and certainly nothing to do with who the hell sits in office for a four year span of time.

Heck, if someone talks about the lack of melanin in caucasians being an environmental adaptation to lower levels of sunlight, thus advantaging those who can process more vitamin d, you wouldn't go off on a bender about how we just had a black president and black people can have vitamin d deficiencies if they live in the north too, would you?

It’s the attitudes I’m protesting. Plus the absolute ignorance of anatomy, sexuality, and reproduction.

Most of the time, I'd be right there with you... but I'm not seeing the attitude from Loren than you seem to be seeing.

And I doubt that our human ancestors engaged in gang bangs routinely. Humans do not go into heat, so as a strategy of ensuring your sperm wins, it would really suck.

I mean... how far back in our family tree are you looking? If you're only looking to the past 50K years or so where we have anthropological evidence of human societies, probably not. If you're looking at the past 300K years of homo sapiens sapiens I think that might get a little tougher to defend. If you include ancestors in the same genus, now you're talking several million years. How long ago are you assuming that the human penis evolved?

And more to the point, who said anything about gang bangs other than you? You're the one who has interpreted this through the lens of a porno. I don't see any reason to assume that none of our distant ancestors could possibly have had multiple male partners within a relatively short period of time. Hell, there are plenty of women today who will have sex with more than one guy in the same day, and do so willingly.

My point here is that you're errantly applying modern cultural views onto ancestors millions of years ago, then berating Loren for talking about that million-year-old evolutionary development. It's one thing to take the position that you don't buy the hypothesis, it's quite another to attack Loren for referencing someone else's work that he found plausible.

Personally I think some men like the idea of gang bangs and like the idea that they can control their sperm without the inconvenience of wearing a condom. Evolution be damned.

Condoms didn't exist millions of years ago so... *shrug*

The only reason I can see for a human penis to evolve to scoop out other men’s ejaculate in order to ensure his sperm fertilizes the egg is in a gang bang situation. Which genuinely only makes sense if humans undergo a heat, which they do not.

Logic contradicts that supposition even if greater than a cursory knowledge of female anatomy and conception escape us.

I suspect the “scooping “ explanation of the human penis is pure speculation on the part if people with way too much time on their hands.

An acccurate summary of nearly all arguments from so-called "evolutionary psychology", when you really look in to them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

Would you call decreasing female empowerment to the extent it at least makes economic sense for them to partner with a male person sexual slavery? Would you call increasing the female incentive for the biological father of her offspring to help raise their children sexual slavery?

Both of those solutions decrease female empowerment without making them into sexual slaves IMO.

So those are atleast 2 solutions I would not call sexual slavery. Perhaps you still disagree. But if you do still disagree that begs the question why you would not call everyone who labors at a job a slave? Most everyone in the world is incentivized to do things we would not otherwise do just for our survival.

If you are compelling them to partner up to function that's sexual slavery.

A job is not slavery because it's a benefit, not a cost.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You aren't proposing any solution unless you think sexual slavery is a good thing.

IMHO, female empowerment could be reduced without making them sexual slaves.

WTF? Female empowerment is not the problem. If some men are having problems finding partners that will accept them, they are the problem.

BTW, providing incentives is empowering choice.

Eh I'm personally willing to just say some people (men and women) are unattractive so that makes it harder for them. But no one should obsess over relationships or sex so much to the point where it's causing depression or whatever, and if they do they need therapy.

We are wired for bonding. Babies denied that die even if you meet their physical needs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Simulating a sexual encounter in vitro, we found that phalluses with a glans/coronal ridge configuration that approximated a human penis resulted in appreciable displacement of simulated semen. Depth of thrusting was also an important parameter, with significant displacement occurring only when the penis was inserted 75% or more of the way into the vagina, forcing the semen under the frenulum and causing it to flow back around the shaft and collect behind the coronal ridge (see Fig. 2).

That's certainly far more I learnt about this particuar topic than I ever wished to know.

Are there a lot more gang bangs going on than I’m aware of? Cause I gotta tell you, gravity works as well with a lot less discomfort.

There is AFIAK no way to establish for sure what's going on. It's just it is a design optimized for sperm scraping, there's probably a reason. It also could be a legacy thing, evolved in some now extinct precursor species. We don't see what their penises looked like so we can't pin it down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've given the same simple advice, "Clean shirt, clean nails, smell good, and smile", for many years, but have yet to see the recipient actually try it.

The problem is this is the low hanging fruit, you act as if it is a general solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I only have a few years of experience as a payroll employee. It’s not lucrative, but it’s just as much freedom as it is slavery IMO.
As an employer/business owner I have found the level of obligation to be far more urgent and compelling, and even stifling. Much labor is forced, unanticipated and devoid of imposed limits, legal or otherwise. All of which lends a feeling of enslavement that exceeds that of being employed.
YMMV

I simply don't have the risk appetite to be self-employed. Even when I was making minimum wage, I preferred the predictability to the uncertainty.

Exactly. When your income comes from receipts rather than labor it can be unpredictable. There was a month my wife had a $0 gross. Very much feast or famine. We handled the unpredictability by simply assuming her income was $0 for all commitments (like how big a mortgage payment we would consider), everything she made went to savings. And it always means there is no such thing as overtime, sick pay or paid vacations. If you have enough cushion, or one person works a regular job, it's ok--but if neither of these is true it's a very bad idea.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'd managed to avoid this thread until just now. The thread was up to page 19 but -- astounded by what I was reading -- I clicked on the quote tree, through a discussion that penis geometry was fashioned by evolution to scrape out other men's sperm (!!!), and -- although I suppose the quote tree eventually goes all the way to page 1 -- stopped at this post on page 12.

The first I see on the list for men is to know whether or not their offspring is really their own. For evolutionary reasons men don't want to support someone else's kid. Especially someone else's kid who was conceived in stealth with their marital wife. Before contraception and genetic testing all you had in society was to enforce women to behave in strict moral code so most men could actually have offspring and those married would know the kids were actually his kids. Because of liberal courts we don't have that certainty anymore and supposedly the democrats will tell you it "does not matter" anyway. While it really does matter to the average male in a serious grave way....

Thanks to women and trans rights it is very difficult for the average male to create any sort of legacy today....

So the downtrodden male gender's present-day miseries are caused by Women, Liberal courts, Democrats and Trans rights. I might have known.

I see on the 'Net that some women -- Democratic women? -- require their lovers to wear locked "chastity cages" when allowed out into the wild. Is this really a thing?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Simulating a sexual encounter in vitro, we found that phalluses with a glans/coronal ridge configuration that approximated a human penis resulted in appreciable displacement of simulated semen. Depth of thrusting was also an important parameter, with significant displacement occurring only when the penis was inserted 75% or more of the way into the vagina, forcing the semen under the frenulum and causing it to flow back around the shaft and collect behind the coronal ridge (see Fig. 2).

That's certainly far more I learnt about this particuar topic than I ever wished to know.

I guess better to learn this way than direct experience?

 

[Shadowy Man]

The only reason I can see for a human penis to evolve to scoop out other men’s ejaculate in order to ensure his sperm fertilizes the egg is in a gang bang situation. Which genuinely only makes sense if humans undergo a heat, which they do not.

Logic contradicts that supposition even if greater than a cursory knowledge of female anatomy and conception escape us.

I suspect the “scooping “ explanation of the human penis is pure speculation on the part if people with way too much time on their hands.

Sounds like time isn’t all they had in their hands.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've given the same simple advice, "Clean shirt, clean nails, smell good, and smile", for many years, but have yet to see the recipient actually try it.

The problem is this is the low hanging fruit, you act as if it is a general solution.

Who picks the high hanging fruit first? It's the first step that makes the step possible. The man who says, I can't walk that far, will never get there.

 

[pood]

Still waiting for @RVonse to explain this disempowering the wimmins thing, and how it would help incels get laid.

 

[patchy]

I find it equally likely that the knob on the end of a penis evolved to keep all these fucking over-imaginative incels’ hands from flying off it while they’re jacking off.