The Manhood Trap

[Jimmy Higgins]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

I want to offer the family of Emily Lake my condolences over what I can only imagine would be her passing away from a brain aneurism after reading the above.

WTF?! This is Incelology 401.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Well.. if the previous post didn't kill Emily Lake, this one surely did. Again, thoughts and prayers for her family.

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.

Dude, Saudi Arabia is calling you.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Well.. if the previous post didn't kill Emily Lake, this one surely did. Again, thoughts and prayers for her family.

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.

Dude, Saudi Arabia is calling you.

Like, how is it not coercion to force one population into economic reliance on another population?

I think I WOULD call everyone in the world FORCED to work through manipulation by others *in any situation where that is not strictly necessary* to be slavery.

It's the removal of a third option that makes it coercive.

We could just do not-that and the entire situation sorts itself very promptly.

The issue here is that some "men" don't want to be expected to do the things that make them not be losers. In fact they think if they do those things, they won't be "men" anymore. And let's be clear: one of those things is culturally "wiping your ass after you shit".

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

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.

 

[Elixir]

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

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Toni]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

I want to offer the family of Emily Lake my condolences over what I can only imagine would be her passing away from a brain aneurism after reading the above.

WTF?! This is Incelology 401.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

You know, I forget that people with RVonse’s attitude actually exist. I really shouldn’t. I’m a huge fan of Margaret Atwood, and a Toni Morrison and I read recent news. It’s the same kind of blinders I wore back when I was a kid and believed that racism did not really exist outside of my family and home town and yeah, county.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Song of Solomon was the worst weekend of my life. Just saying.

 

[Toni]

Realistically, not every person is going to find a partner. That's been the reality for the entirety of human existence.

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

Just for convenience lets call it a sex ratio. Would you believe a civilized society does better when 1 celebrity like Musk enjoys all the sex while large numbers of incels get no sex? Do you believe (as I do) that this so called "sex ratio" at least appears linked to:

1) the gini coefficient of wealth distribution. Women are programmed to prefer security.
2) the extreme empowerment of womens rights. Extremely empowered women of todays western society make no priority or effort to mate with anyone. And the few that do only the very highest quality males are sought after and "the rest of the leftover males" are sitting in their parents basement due to the limited number of jobs given away to the women. Incels enjoying all their testosterone playing video games.

Which would you believe is the better focus for society overall? I can see how the present situation works well for population control but probably not so well for the peaceful or stable population where the majority (both female and male) are completely satisfied and happy.

But I could be convinced otherwise.

I sincerely doubt that you could be convinced otherwise.

I realize that you will never believe this but 1) Not all women are heterosexual 2) a lot of people—make and female—are forgoing parenthood fir many reasons, but particularly because of lack of partners and economics. It’s very difficult to balance career and family. There is little to zero security in marriage if you are a stay at home parent or spouse, infidelity always and still existing and it being incredibly difficult to find a job sufficient to cover living expenses after a hiatus from the workforce that spans more than a few years, and even then, it’s difficult. Believe it or not, women have always been people who have wishes, hopes and dreams and ambitions outside some man’s bed and kitchen and child rearing. Women have made significant strides in establishing themselves as equals in the workforce. Men have been less enthusiastically (as a group) in assuming half of the home keeping/child rearing aspects of life as part of a dual income family unit.

Plus (some) men have this habit of listing after 17-30 year olds who look like they could be Playboy bunnies ( anachronism deliberate), focusing only on sweet young looking things ( again, deliberate word choice) who stir the loins of their man and make no pesky demands like…equality or just having their own thoughts and wants and needs. Too many men are simply arrested adolescents.

Lots and lots of women really would love to meet some nice guy to build a life and maybe a family with. They aren’t all under 30, size 2 with a 34DD figure and an inherited fortune they’d love you to mange for them, sure. Most prefer a man who knows his way around a kitchen, a home repair manual ( and the bedroom) to one who spends his time watching game or playing games. Oh, and who has a steady job,

 

[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.

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”??? And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

 

[TomC]

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”??? And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

Totally this.
How about decreasing male entitlement? How about explaining to guys that if taking a shower and getting a job and being nice to people is more trouble than female companionship is worth, then the celibacy is nothing like "involuntary".
Gimme to break. This is 21st century USA. There are plenty of women out there with low standards, going below those standards is a choice.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Song of Solomon was the worst weekend of my life. Just saying.

I quite liked Song of Solomon.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”??? And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

Totally this.
How about decreasing male entitlement? How about explaining to guys that if taking a shower and getting a job and being nice to people is more trouble than female companionship is worth, then the celibacy is nothing like "involuntary".
Gimme to break. This is 21st century USA. There are plenty of women out there with low standards, going below those standards is a choice.
Tom

I used to do volunteer editing for an Internet story site. The site had grammar and style standards, so most authors needed help a little help. The editors had a chat group where we could vent our frustrations. One of the most common frustrations was the ABF, the adolescent boy fantasy. This is where a girl falls out of the sky, lands on the male protagonist and they have sex. The concept of the protagonist having some character features a woman might find appealing was totally foreign to them.

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.

 

[starwater]

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”??? And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

Totally this.
How about decreasing male entitlement? How about explaining to guys that if taking a shower and getting a job and being nice to people is more trouble than female companionship is worth, then the celibacy is nothing like "involuntary".
Gimme to break. This is 21st century USA. There are plenty of women out there with low standards, going below those standards is a choice.
Tom

I used to do volunteer editing for an Internet story site. The site had grammar and style standards, so most authors needed help a little help. The editors had a chat group where we could vent our frustrations. One of the most common frustrations was the ABF, the adolescent boy fantasy. This is where a girl falls out of the sky, lands on the male protagonist and they have sex. The concept of the protagonist having some character features a woman might find appealing was totally foreign to them.

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.

So did these ABF boys ever get their fantasy?

too me this evolution and natural selection. If the incels can't get sex then they will not procreate. the guys who clean up, are nice and take an equal role - are they going to procreate more?

 

[Elixir]

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”???

For equality. Because they’re an American conservative whose empowerment has been revoked, having sold their balls to Donald Trump?

And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

Jeezus you ask hard questions!

 

[Emily Lake]

There's not much point in getting a meal, if you sustain an injury that will become septic and kill you in a week or two; And while predation is obviously both common and violent, it's very rare within a species.

Good post all in all. Selecting one bit to add to.

It's rare within mammalian species. Probably birds too. It's not particularly rare within fish or reptiles, and quite common among insects and spiders.

I think it's reasonable that we all take as given that we're talking about mammals, but sometimes I feel a bit pedantic.

 

[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?

 

[Bronzeage]

Why in the hell should anyone advocate “decreasing female empowerment”??? And why should anyone who wants that not be held in contempt?

Totally this.
How about decreasing male entitlement? How about explaining to guys that if taking a shower and getting a job and being nice to people is more trouble than female companionship is worth, then the celibacy is nothing like "involuntary".
Gimme to break. This is 21st century USA. There are plenty of women out there with low standards, going below those standards is a choice.
Tom

I used to do volunteer editing for an Internet story site. The site had grammar and style standards, so most authors needed help a little help. The editors had a chat group where we could vent our frustrations. One of the most common frustrations was the ABF, the adolescent boy fantasy. This is where a girl falls out of the sky, lands on the male protagonist and they have sex. The concept of the protagonist having some character features a woman might find appealing was totally foreign to them.

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.

So did these ABF boys ever get their fantasy?

too me this evolution and natural selection. If the incels can't get sex then they will not procreate. the guys who clean up, are nice and take an equal role - are they going to procreate more?

As far as can be documented, the AFB has never become a reality.

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.

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

 

[Emily Lake]

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?

I dunno, I call efforts to decrease female empowerment misogyny.

 

[Emily Lake]

Exactly correct. I agree 100% on this point and I'm confident science supports that position as well. If we assume not every person finds a suitable partner then what would you say is the next best ideal for society? Is it better for majority of young men loaded with testosterone to either die in war or find a sex partner (like in civilizations of the past)? Or is it better for those same men to live as horny individuals and hope they come out with sex robots in the near future? What about the future of families themselves?

I want to offer the family of Emily Lake my condolences over what I can only imagine would be her passing away from a brain aneurism after reading the above.

It's so far out there on the spectrum of male-centric sexism that I actually snort-laughed. I'm just glad I wasn't drinking or eating anything at the time.

What's really funny to me is that most other mammals have more females than males, and very few males get to mate. Females generally do the sexual selection. Most male mammals kill each other or get eaten before a female ever deigns to consider them for a potential mate.