The rise of Incels

[DrZoidberg]

I think what's changed is that the internet has widened the pool of men to chase. In the past a woman who wasn't finding any more prospects at their desired level would get more realistic. Now the pool in reasonably dense areas is effectively infinite, they'll never run out of prospects to chase.



You correctly identified that men on the low end are basically locked out but then your solution is "put in the effort"--which you've already admitted isn't going to work.

And it is a social issue because large number of men with no prospects of a relationship become a social problem.

But whose fault is that? Whose responsibility is it to fix it?

All social problems are not subject to fixes. As a Buddhist would say, life is suffering. A "fix" would require women to defy their nature of not wanting to have sexual relationships with undesirable men.

I'm not saying that not putting the effort in won't work. But those low on the fuckability scale have nothing to lose by putting effort in. Any effort. Humans are sexual beings. Almost any sex is better than no sex.

I think your conceptual trap is thinking that it's a race where it only matters if you win or not. But there's rewards all along the way. It's just more rewards the more you win the race.

I work in IT. An experienced programmer churns out 20 times more high quality code than a n00b programmer, and requires less support. If two guys are the same age and the second one started out later, the experienced programmer will always be a better programmer. That's not an argument for the second programmer to never try. No matter where in your life you start out it's always a pay off if you put the work in.

And let's face it, the stuff that makes you attractive to the opposite sex, is the same stuff that you make you more attractive to yourself. It's ultimately a quest for self love and self acceptance. There's nothing more of a turn off than some needy fuck who needs you to fix their wide open gaping hole in their soul. Or worse, somebody who is willing to self destruct in order to save you. We're all happiest if we meet someone who is our equal and wants to go on an adventure together. People who are open and curious and are just in for a ride. That's just as true if it's for life or a one night stand.

I'm not going to pontificate on what people should do, since there's many ways to fuck this up. And I do NOT understand women. I have no idea why some women are super into me, while others, I have been super nice to, can't stand me. It's all just one big mystery. And that's part of the fun IMHO.

 

[Bronzeage]

Most people have sex with people on the "the best I can do" principle. Few people, men or women, have sex with the people they'd like. I have no trouble believing that a man at the lower end of the desirability spectrum will be completely locked out of the dating scene. But that's always been the case. That's not a new development. That's what I am skeptical about.

I think what's changed is that the internet has widened the pool of men to chase. In the past a woman who wasn't finding any more prospects at their desired level would get more realistic. Now the pool in reasonably dense areas is effectively infinite, they'll never run out of prospects to chase.

I also don't see it as a problem. This is a market place. If you want to get laid, then put in the effort. Nobody owes anybody sex. Yeah, it sucks for all those people with various problems making it hard. But that's most people. That's just life.

I'm just sceptical about the idea that Incels is a new thing or increasing.

You correctly identified that men on the low end are basically locked out but then your solution is "put in the effort"--which you've already admitted isn't going to work.

And it is a social issue because large number of men with no prospects of a relationship become a social problem.

Can you explain to me why self identified incels have no prospect of a relationship? I don't buy the no money/no woman trope. I know too many musicians who always have an attractive girlfriend.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think what's changed is that the internet has widened the pool of men to chase. In the past a woman who wasn't finding any more prospects at their desired level would get more realistic. Now the pool in reasonably dense areas is effectively infinite, they'll never run out of prospects to chase.



You correctly identified that men on the low end are basically locked out but then your solution is "put in the effort"--which you've already admitted isn't going to work.

And it is a social issue because large number of men with no prospects of a relationship become a social problem.

Can you explain to me why self identified incels have no prospect of a relationship? I don't buy the no money/no woman trope. I know too many musicians who always have an attractive girlfriend.

I'm not saying no money = no woman. I'm saying things that put you low on the desirability scale mean no woman--money is something of a factor but not the whole issue by any means. Some of those are somewhat under our control, some of them aren't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And let's face it, the stuff that makes you attractive to the opposite sex, is the same stuff that you make you more attractive to yourself. It's ultimately a quest for self love and self acceptance. There's nothing more of a turn off than some needy fuck who needs you to fix their wide open gaping hole in their soul. Or worse, somebody who is willing to self destruct in order to save you. We're all happiest if we meet someone who is our equal and wants to go on an adventure together. People who are open and curious and are just in for a ride. That's just as true if it's for life or a one night stand.

You can't change your looks.

I'm not saying there is a good answer, but I'm saying there's a problem because history says lots of men with little hope of finding a woman = trouble.

 

[Emily Lake]

Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe... there are so many guys not getting laid because their entire objective is nothing more than to get laid. And while there are exceptions, I think it's fair to say that most women don't relish being thought of like an item on a drive-through menu, to be ordered up for consumption then tossed aside once the dude's appetite has been sated.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think what's changed is that the internet has widened the pool of men to chase. In the past a woman who wasn't finding any more prospects at their desired level would get more realistic. Now the pool in reasonably dense areas is effectively infinite, they'll never run out of prospects to chase.



You correctly identified that men on the low end are basically locked out but then your solution is "put in the effort"--which you've already admitted isn't going to work.

And it is a social issue because large number of men with no prospects of a relationship become a social problem.

Can you explain to me why self identified incels have no prospect of a relationship? I don't buy the no money/no woman trope. I know too many musicians who always have an attractive girlfriend.

I'm not saying no money = no woman. I'm saying things that put you low on the desirability scale mean no woman--money is something of a factor but not the whole issue by any means. Some of those are somewhat under our control, some of them aren't.

I'm still puzzled. Still using my musician friends as a data sample, I don't think any of them would win a beauty contest. All of them have aged out of any possibility of being considered cute. It's my observation that within a fairly wide middle ground, most women think a man's looks are secondary.

Back when I was a job creator, one of my employees was a young woman who was 5 ft 11. Heels made her 6'2". She once told me, she wouldn't consider dating a man taller than her. She said most tall guys are assholes. But, if a man who was 5'7" had the nerve to walk up and ask her to dance, that's the man she wanted to meet. Of course, there's no way to know that unless you ask her to dance.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And let's face it, the stuff that makes you attractive to the opposite sex, is the same stuff that you make you more attractive to yourself. It's ultimately a quest for self love and self acceptance. There's nothing more of a turn off than some needy fuck who needs you to fix their wide open gaping hole in their soul. Or worse, somebody who is willing to self destruct in order to save you. We're all happiest if we meet someone who is our equal and wants to go on an adventure together. People who are open and curious and are just in for a ride. That's just as true if it's for life or a one night stand.

You can't change your looks.

I'm not saying there is a good answer, but I'm saying there's a problem because history says lots of men with little hope of finding a woman = trouble.

The body is a greater attractor than the face. If you have a hard muscular body, then you can get away with a so-so face. That's the more true the older we are.

And you can always get status. Women love a man with high status.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe... there are so many guys not getting laid because their entire objective is nothing more than to get laid. And while there are exceptions, I think it's fair to say that most women don't relish being thought of like an item on a drive-through menu, to be ordered up for consumption then tossed aside once the dude's appetite has been sated.

There's plenty of women who see men as an item on a drive through menu. I am convinced it's pretty much gender equality regarding that. The difference is that men are cool with being objectified.

I know quite a few couples with kids who have an open relationship, simply out of necessity. It's easier that one is home with the kids and the other gets laid. These women aren't going to waste any time on a romantic dinner before the fuck. They want to get home to the husband they love.

Sure, I am in the queer/kinky community. But is this only found in this world?

 

[rousseau]

And let's face it, the stuff that makes you attractive to the opposite sex, is the same stuff that you make you more attractive to yourself. It's ultimately a quest for self love and self acceptance. There's nothing more of a turn off than some needy fuck who needs you to fix their wide open gaping hole in their soul. Or worse, somebody who is willing to self destruct in order to save you. We're all happiest if we meet someone who is our equal and wants to go on an adventure together. People who are open and curious and are just in for a ride. That's just as true if it's for life or a one night stand.

You can't change your looks.

I'm not saying there is a good answer, but I'm saying there's a problem because history says lots of men with little hope of finding a woman = trouble.

The body is a greater attractor than the face. If you have a hard muscular body, then you can get away with a so-so face. That's the more true the older we are.

And you can always get status. Women love a man with high status.

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

 

[Emily Lake]

Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe... there are so many guys not getting laid because their entire objective is nothing more than to get laid. And while there are exceptions, I think it's fair to say that most women don't relish being thought of like an item on a drive-through menu, to be ordered up for consumption then tossed aside once the dude's appetite has been sated.

There's plenty of women who see men as an item on a drive through menu. I am convinced it's pretty much gender equality regarding that. The difference is that men are cool with being objectified.

I know quite a few couples with kids who have an open relationship, simply out of necessity. It's easier that one is home with the kids and the other gets laid. These women aren't going to waste any time on a romantic dinner before the fuck. They want to get home to the husband they love.

Sure, I am in the queer/kinky community. But is this only found in this world?

I think that yes, it's pretty much limited to the queer/kink community.

 

[Emily Lake]

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

This is where the evolutionary angle of sexual selection comes into play. Attraction is generally going to be different for males versus females of almost every mammalian species. For males, 'make good children and don't die in childbirth' is a core reproductive drive. For females, who bear the burden of childbirth, it's more like 'make good children and protect me while I gestate and then provide for and protect me and my children while I rear them'.

'Don't die in childbirth' ends up underlying some elements of physical attraction - youth, large hip-to-waist ratio, indicators of health like skin and hair and nails, etc. On a sociological note, a lot of the peacocking that women do is targeted those elements, even if it's subconscious. Most make-up either emphasizes or mimics that characteristics of youth by presenting smooth, glowing skin and healthy shiny bouncy hair. Even manicures end up suggesting healthy nails, which is an indicator of overall health. And most of the clothing that men consider to be sexy are outfits that emphasize or exaggerate hips, waist, and breasts - indicators of a woman's ability to bear a child to term without dying.

'Provide and protect' similarly show sup in the selections that women tend to make. Stability, maturity, and social success (not explicitly financial success) are big ones, as they strongly correlate to the ability to provide. Basic indicators of health are of course cleanliness, grooming, etc. Character ends up playing a larger selection role for most women, because the ability to provide and protect isn't as closely tied to youth or to physical attractiveness in males. A middle-aged man with a receding hairline and an oft-broken nose isn't necessarily off the table. Virility doesn't necessarily reduce in men until they're at an age that would historically have suggested that they're no longer in a position to provide and protect anyway. And that broken nose and those scars can frequently indicate that a man is willing and able to stand up and fight when necessary.

That said... sexual selection isn't exclusively biological in nature. Some of it probably is innate based on years of evolution, particularly those elements focused on health indicators. But a lot of it is going to be social - especially when we're talking about the keys that women are looking for to indicate success and stability. Women are no longer relegated to the home, so the need for a man to be a breadwinner is significantly reduced. A man can be a good provider and protector by being willing and able to help with the housework and to care for children. The criteria for provider/protector/partner is in flux.

 

[rousseau]

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

This is where the evolutionary angle of sexual selection comes into play. Attraction is generally going to be different for males versus females of almost every mammalian species. For males, 'make good children and don't die in childbirth' is a core reproductive drive. For females, who bear the burden of childbirth, it's more like 'make good children and protect me while I gestate and then provide for and protect me and my children while I rear them'.

'Don't die in childbirth' ends up underlying some elements of physical attraction - youth, large hip-to-waist ratio, indicators of health like skin and hair and nails, etc. On a sociological note, a lot of the peacocking that women do is targeted those elements, even if it's subconscious. Most make-up either emphasizes or mimics that characteristics of youth by presenting smooth, glowing skin and healthy shiny bouncy hair. Even manicures end up suggesting healthy nails, which is an indicator of overall health. And most of the clothing that men consider to be sexy are outfits that emphasize or exaggerate hips, waist, and breasts - indicators of a woman's ability to bear a child to term without dying.

'Provide and protect' similarly show sup in the selections that women tend to make. Stability, maturity, and social success (not explicitly financial success) are big ones, as they strongly correlate to the ability to provide. Basic indicators of health are of course cleanliness, grooming, etc. Character ends up playing a larger selection role for most women, because the ability to provide and protect isn't as closely tied to youth or to physical attractiveness in males. A middle-aged man with a receding hairline and an oft-broken nose isn't necessarily off the table. Virility doesn't necessarily reduce in men until they're at an age that would historically have suggested that they're no longer in a position to provide and protect anyway. And that broken nose and those scars can frequently indicate that a man is willing and able to stand up and fight when necessary.

That said... sexual selection isn't exclusively biological in nature. Some of it probably is innate based on years of evolution, particularly those elements focused on health indicators. But a lot of it is going to be social - especially when we're talking about the keys that women are looking for to indicate success and stability. Women are no longer relegated to the home, so the need for a man to be a breadwinner is significantly reduced. A man can be a good provider and protector by being willing and able to help with the housework and to care for children. The criteria for provider/protector/partner is in flux.

I agree with pretty much all of that, but I've never heard the don't die in childbirth factor, which is interesting. I always thought the main element of male on female attraction is to maximize number of child-rearing years within socially accepted limits on age deviation, which typically makes female partners the younger one.

I've thought a lot about this recently, and it's interesting how closely women who are one to five years younger than I am pay attention to me, while women who are my age or older almost universally ignore me. I can post a story on Instagram and the women who regularly view it are almost always women I could feasibly be in a relationship with some day. Which I think points to an important and often unseen fact: that sexual attraction and partnering isn't just about sex, but also about survival. For women it makes no sense to spend energy on men who can never provide for them in any meaningful way.

 

[bilby]

I strongly suspect that most of the things men tell other men about how to attract women are deliberate (but not alway conscious) lies, whose effect is to make other men less competitive.

Men encourage each other to be petty and vile, telling each other that that's what women "really" want.

It's a strategy that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is very harmful from a social perspective.

I don't see any major shift in the numbers of men who can't find partners. The thing that has changed is the ability of those men to "advise" each other in toxic feedback loops that produce a vicious spiral of failure and hatred.

Treating women badly leads to rejection. Rejection leads to seeking advice from peers who have neither the ability to help nor any motive to do so if they could, which leads to increasing hatred and objectification of women. This leads those men to treat women badly, often with the bizarre expectation that doing so will actually reduce the chances of rejection. Inevitably, this leads to rejection, and the cycle repeats.

The solution has always been a simple one - masturbation. Sexual release without the need to find a partner has to be better than sex with a partner you hate.

Stupidly and dangerously, this practice has long been reviled and denigrated as something shameful, which is yet another example of why religion is a very bad idea.

 

[Bronzeage]

I strongly suspect that most of the things men tell other men about how to attract women are deliberate (but not alway conscious) lies, whose effect is to make other men less competitive.

Men encourage each other to be petty and vile, telling each other that that's what women "really" want.

It's a strategy that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is very harmful from a social perspective.

I don't see any major shift in the numbers of men who can't find partners. The thing that has changed is the ability of those men to "advise" each other in toxic feedback loops that produce a vicious spiral of failure and hatred.

Treating women badly leads to rejection. Rejection leads to seeking advice from peers who have neither the ability to help nor any motive to do so if they could, which leads to increasing hatred and objectification of women. This leads those men to treat women badly, often with the bizarre expectation that doing so will actually reduce the chances of rejection. Inevitably, this leads to rejection, and the cycle repeats.

The solution has always been a simple one - masturbation. Sexual release without the need to find a partner has to be better than sex with a partner you hate.

Stupidly and dangerously, this practice has long been reviled and denigrated as something shameful, which is yet another example of why religion is a very bad idea.

This is certainly contrary to my experience. My general advice to any man who wants to attract women, or any woman in particular is to wear a clean shirt, have clean fingernails, and smile. The idea I might create competition for the woman I want, never occurred to me.

While I won't dispute the claim that masturbation is better than sex with a person you hate, I'm sure that is a special case. I am certain that if masturbation were even a moderately acceptable substitute for sex with another person, hominids would have gone extinct soon after evolving to have an opposable thumb.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Call me crazy, but maybe, just maybe... there are so many guys not getting laid because their entire objective is nothing more than to get laid. And while there are exceptions, I think it's fair to say that most women don't relish being thought of like an item on a drive-through menu, to be ordered up for consumption then tossed aside once the dude's appetite has been sated.

There's plenty of women who see men as an item on a drive through menu. I am convinced it's pretty much gender equality regarding that. The difference is that men are cool with being objectified.

I know quite a few couples with kids who have an open relationship, simply out of necessity. It's easier that one is home with the kids and the other gets laid. These women aren't going to waste any time on a romantic dinner before the fuck. They want to get home to the husband they love.

Sure, I am in the queer/kinky community. But is this only found in this world?

I think the reality is somewhere between the two of you. There definitely are women who simply want to get laid, but I don't think there are as many as there are men.

However, I do think there are a substantial number who provide sex early on in the hopes of getting a relationship out of it--and plenty of guys willing to take advantage of the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The body is a greater attractor than the face. If you have a hard muscular body, then you can get away with a so-so face. That's the more true the older we are.

And you can always get status. Women love a man with high status.

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

The problem is that internet dating skews the picture--most judgments are going to be made before any factors that can't be captured in a photograph can be considered.

 

[rousseau]

The body is a greater attractor than the face. If you have a hard muscular body, then you can get away with a so-so face. That's the more true the older we are.

And you can always get status. Women love a man with high status.

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

The problem is that internet dating skews the picture--most judgments are going to be made before any factors that can't be captured in a photograph can be considered.

I don't see how that's not true of in-person interaction too. If someone hasn't learned that it's not all about appearance yet, they're going to make the same decision whether that's through an interface or face to face. Physical appearance is also an important factor in a relationship, and at the end of the day a person is either physically attracted to you, or they're not.

Put another way, physical attraction is the boss you need to get by on level one. The higher levels are where your character comes into play and partnerships are formed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is that internet dating skews the picture--most judgments are going to be made before any factors that can't be captured in a photograph can be considered.

I don't see how that's not true of in-person interaction too. If someone hasn't learned that it's not all about appearance yet, they're going to make the same decision whether that's through an interface or face to face. Physical appearance is also an important factor in a relationship, and at the end of the day a person is either physically attracted to you, or they're not.

Put another way, physical attraction is the boss you need to get by on level one. The higher levels are where your character comes into play and partnerships are formed.

Physical appearance dominates in the first encounter, but when you get to know someone in a non-dating context other factors come into play. As dating moves more and more to the internet there will be fewer opportunities to get to know someone first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exhibit A of the problem: https://www.oregonlive.com/advice/2...ders-lying-on-his-online-dating-profiles.html

Look at the first letter.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The body is a greater attractor than the face. If you have a hard muscular body, then you can get away with a so-so face. That's the more true the older we are.

And you can always get status. Women love a man with high status.

When you boil it down most women are attracted to men who would make a good father. This usually includes some level of physical strength, healthy appearance, social competency, and solid character to pass onto children. Men who complain about not getting laid are obviously missing a few or all of these traits. In reality, not every man is cut out to be a parent, and so not every man is desired by women.

Of course, the above isn't a strict rule and many men get laid for a variety of reasons and in a variety of contexts. But at a bare minimum if someone is attractive there is at least one trait present which would help their offspring procreate themselves, be it physical appearance, strength, confidence, or character. If someone lacks all four of these traits, be it man or woman, they're going to have a hard time.

I'd argue that the same qualities good for fatherhood is the same qualities we value in any person we want to be around.

The single most critical quality I look for in a person I want in my life is the ability to pay attention, take responsibility, think ahead and to try their best to figure out a way to make life easier for people around them. It's the same qualities I look for in dinner guests as those trying to keep their hyperactive son alive.

So I don't necessarily think it's just about fatherhood. I think that's too reductionist and too myopically focused on just reproduction.