• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The rise of Incels

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I hear talk about how male sexlessness is rising.

It makes me suspicious. If male sexlessness is rising then so should female sexlessness. The top 20% of men have always had all the sex they want. So they're hardly having more sex than before. So that can't explain how male sexlessness is going up while female sexlessness isn't.

I wonder if it's more a question of undesirable men stopping with lying about how much sex they're getting. Being more open about their situation and finding likeminded people online.

Do you think that the number of Incels really is rising?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,564
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I hear talk about how male sexlessness is rising.

It makes me suspicious. If male sexlessness is rising then so should female sexlessness. The top 20% of men have always had all the sex they want. So they're hardly having more sex than before. So that can't explain how male sexlessness is going up while female sexlessness isn't.

I wonder if it's more a question of undesirable men stopping with lying about how much sex they're getting. Being more open about their situation and finding likeminded people online.

Do you think that the number of Incels really is rising?

I think you're right in that they're just finding each other online and getting noticed. We're probably seeing the same thing happening with other marginal types of people, too, such as conspiracy nuts and people with extreme political ideologies.

I suspect that once these people find each other, they end up fuelling each other's sense of resentment and entitlement. So the number of young men with really extreme incel attitudes has probably gone up a lot thanks to internet discussion boards.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
I think Incels spend a fuckton of time telling each other lies about how 20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women, and the women that cannot get an Alpha Male are sleeping with dogs, or other women, or women that have transitioned to men.
They also see a study on how a dating site's records show X-many women members are contacting Y-many men and figure those ratios are universal, But it's all posing and tiny sample sizes and out-of-context accusations.
And noise.
LOTS of noise for the sake of noise.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Messages
3,440
Location
Denver
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
When the internet was new, I predicted that it would cause a Cambrian explosion of micro cultures.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,662
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
I think a large number of young women still have no trouble getting sex; some might be with older or married men. And ... is lesbianism on the rise?

When I was young there were a lot of us men who weren't getting as much sex as we liked. Some tried to encourage each other or offer tips. Very different from today when some "incels" say that, since families with children may get taxpayer-funded food and care. the incels should get taxpayer-funded sex robots!
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
Incels are made, not born. Incels can't reproduce, so they must recruit.

There are a few realities of the situation to recognize. If a man wants a sexual partner, whether for the moment or longer term, he needs contact with a woman. The more the better. This is why high school and college are so nice. A man comes in contact with a great number of women, through no effort of his own. They're everywhere, for the time being, and the key words are "effort of his own." Once a man enters the working world, he won't be herded into large rooms filled with women his own age. He has to put forth some effort. This transforms something which once looked difficult into something impossible.

So what does that get us? It puts the blame for being involuntarily celibate on the incel. Creating the right conditions for a relationship, even if it's expected to last only 20 minutes, takes effort. With any effort, there is a possibility of failure. That's just reality.

I was probably around age 14 when someone explained the 1 to 10 scale to me. While the 10 scale is demeaning to women, it's real lesson for men is, don't try to punch above your own weight. All important lessons for men are expressed as sports metaphors. Any man who ever assessed a woman's position on a scale, did it only to determine his position, relative to her. A 6guy could have a shot at a 7woman, maybe an 8, but he knows the 9s and 10s are out of reach. There is an inherent problem in filling an arbitrary scale with subjective data.

The incel wants a woman above his number, which is all the 2s and up, but he's not willing to pursue a 2 or a 3. He wants a 6 or higher. There are plenty of 2 men who seek a 6woman, or higher, and succeed. This is mainly because they don't worry about the middle school game called the 10scale. That's just reality.

It's pointless to explain any of this to an incel. Perception is reality so his world is very real to him, even if we know it's an illusion of his making.
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,236
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I hear talk about how male sexlessness is rising.

It makes me suspicious. If male sexlessness is rising then so should female sexlessness. The top 20% of men have always had all the sex they want. So they're hardly having more sex than before. So that can't explain how male sexlessness is going up while female sexlessness isn't.

I wonder if it's more a question of undesirable men stopping with lying about how much sex they're getting. Being more open about their situation and finding likeminded people online.

Do you think that the number of Incels really is rising?

Yes, definitely. Young, white males (yes, other males, but overwhelmingly white) are bombarded with ideological attempts to hijack their ignorance and animal brain aggression.

Fewer men are getting higher education these days. This absolutely does factor in to the number of young, white men being swayed by incel ideology and recruitment. More and more kids are gaming, too, which is also a factor because recruiters can easily access the attention of thousands or millions of young, white males. Another factor (in the US, at least) is the cultural attitude that white males are automatically good people who don't really need a lot of training in humility or ethics or personal responsibility, so those recruiters have a huge void to fill.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,137
Location
USA, California
Basic Beliefs
godless heathen
I hear talk about how male sexlessness is rising.

It makes me suspicious. If male sexlessness is rising then so should female sexlessness. The top 20% of men have always had all the sex they want. So they're hardly having more sex than before. So that can't explain how male sexlessness is going up while female sexlessness isn't.

I wonder if it's more a question of undesirable men stopping with lying about how much sex they're getting. Being more open about their situation and finding likeminded people online.

Do you think that the number of Incels really is rising?

Mm. No. I think it's very possible. At least among my male friends who are not married, it's basically 0 sex (unless they go to a prostitute) or sex on demand (using tinder, although now in my age group it's other dating apps).
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I hear talk about how male sexlessness is rising.

It makes me suspicious. If male sexlessness is rising then so should female sexlessness. The top 20% of men have always had all the sex they want. So they're hardly having more sex than before. So that can't explain how male sexlessness is going up while female sexlessness isn't.

I wonder if it's more a question of undesirable men stopping with lying about how much sex they're getting. Being more open about their situation and finding likeminded people online.

Do you think that the number of Incels really is rising?

I don't have any numbers and I do not know whether the percentage is increasing, but with regard to the argument above, even if the top 20% aren't getting any more sex, the top 50% could be getting more sex and the bottom 50% less sex - including larger percentages getting no sex at all -, or a number of other combinations.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think it's a real phenomenon.

The basic issue is that women are choosier about sex than men. A woman may find herself in a position where there's no men available that she wants, but it's pretty hard to find a situation where there are no men willing to fuck her. There are a substantial number of men, however, that consider a low quality woman better than no woman.

It's quite possible for a substantial mismatch between sexless men and sexless women to exist because "sex" is not a yes/no. Consider a situation where half the men are getting sex on average twice a week and half are getting no sex at all, while the women are getting sex on average once a week.

The internet has made the problem much worse.

First, internet dating. It greatly enlarges the dating pools, thus setting up a situation where a fairly small group of good-looking men are being chased by a large pool of average women. The good looking guys get matches, the rest of them get little and the ones at the low end of the looks scale probably never get anything but scammers.

Second, it's brought the incels together and echo chambers amplify positions.

There are a few realities of the situation to recognize. If a man wants a sexual partner, whether for the moment or longer term, he needs contact with a woman. The more the better. This is why high school and college are so nice. A man comes in contact with a great number of women, through no effort of his own. They're everywhere, for the time being, and the key words are "effort of his own." Once a man enters the working world, he won't be herded into large rooms filled with women his own age. He has to put forth some effort. This transforms something which once looked difficult into something impossible.

You're assuming balanced classes. Most of the classes I took were 90%+ male.

I was probably around age 14 when someone explained the 1 to 10 scale to me. While the 10 scale is demeaning to women, it's real lesson for men is, don't try to punch above your own weight. All important lessons for men are expressed as sports metaphors. Any man who ever assessed a woman's position on a scale, did it only to determine his position, relative to her. A 6guy could have a shot at a 7woman, maybe an 8, but he knows the 9s and 10s are out of reach. There is an inherent problem in filling an arbitrary scale with subjective data.

The incel wants a woman above his number, which is all the 2s and up, but he's not willing to pursue a 2 or a 3. He wants a 6 or higher. There are plenty of 2 men who seek a 6woman, or higher, and succeed. This is mainly because they don't worry about the middle school game called the 10scale. That's just reality.

It's pointless to explain any of this to an incel. Perception is reality so his world is very real to him, even if we know it's an illusion of his making.

This would work if the women also followed it. It falls apart in the reality that women are able to in the short run punch above their weight. They're unlikely to marry someone above their level but they can get sex above it.

There's also the problem of some of the women at the top end of the scale being drawn off by the guys who bring money rather than looks to the table.

Some get lucky where attraction develops between people who already are around each other, but as more and more relationships get started on the internet the problem is only going to become worse.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think Incels spend a fuckton of time telling each other lies about how 20% of the men are sleeping with 80% of the women, and the women that cannot get an Alpha Male are sleeping with dogs, or other women, or women that have transitioned to men.
They also see a study on how a dating site's records show X-many women members are contacting Y-many men and figure those ratios are universal, But it's all posing and tiny sample sizes and out-of-context accusations.
And noise.
LOTS of noise for the sake of noise.

I can recommend the book Dataclysm. It's based on the biggest and best dataset ever produced. OKcupids. It's pretty eye opening. It has all kind of dating data that shows pretty clearly what is going on. Both from which profiles people keep going to, as well as which they actually send messages to, and then how the outcomes are.

Women typically see the men at the lower end of the top 20% of men as average looking/attractiveness. While women do care less about looks than men. The truth is that they care about looks as well as other stuff. They want a hot guy who also has status, intelligence, humor, has similar values and a good penis. Men are much less picky.

I absolutely believe that 80% of men struggle to get laid, while the top 20% have as much sex as their appetite allows. When women whine about their struggles in finding a good man, that is the problem. They typically have unrealistic expectations and an extremely warped sense of what a normal man is.

When women complain that they're suffering to live up to the demands of men. What they're complaining about is living up to the demands of the top 20%. And that's a completely different story.

While almost all men prefer women who are 21-23 years old. We still are more democratic and less picky with out women.

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.

While less desirable women have similar problems. Women are only in very extreme situations ever completely locked out of the dating scene. A woman who is willing can almost always get laid. Which is not true for women in the same situation.

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.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,662
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Some of the change is due to the social revolution which began several decades ago. Women started getting good jobs and became less dependent on marriage. Some single women, who might have been actively seeking a husband in older times, found sex not to be a priority. In the 1970's there was a joke-meme: "A woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle."

But more recently, smartphones and social media have transformed society dramatically in several ways. Scary!

Incels are made, not born. Incels can't reproduce, so they must recruit. ...

...

Yes, definitely. Young, white males (yes, other males, but overwhelmingly white) are bombarded with ideological attempts to hijack their ignorance and animal brain aggression.

Fewer men are getting higher education these days. This absolutely does factor in to the number of young, white men being swayed by incel ideology and recruitment. More and more kids are gaming, too, which is also a factor because recruiters can easily access the attention of thousands or millions of young, white males. Another factor (in the US, at least) is the cultural attitude that white males are automatically good people who don't really need a lot of training in humility or ethics or personal responsibility, so those recruiters have a huge void to fill.

What's all this about "recruitment"? Men saddened by their "involuntary celibacy" would be happy to chat with others like them. So they "recruit"? Or is there more deliberate and insidious recruitment involved?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think it's a real phenomenon.

The basic issue is that women are choosier about sex than men. A woman may find herself in a position where there's no men available that she wants, but it's pretty hard to find a situation where there are no men willing to fuck her. There are a substantial number of men, however, that consider a low quality woman better than no woman.

It's quite possible for a substantial mismatch between sexless men and sexless women to exist because "sex" is not a yes/no. Consider a situation where half the men are getting sex on average twice a week and half are getting no sex at all, while the women are getting sex on average once a week.

The internet has made the problem much worse.

First, internet dating. It greatly enlarges the dating pools, thus setting up a situation where a fairly small group of good-looking men are being chased by a large pool of average women. The good looking guys get matches, the rest of them get little and the ones at the low end of the looks scale probably never get anything but scammers.

Second, it's brought the incels together and echo chambers amplify positions.

I don't think the maths add up. I've seen different numbers. But for the Incel story to work the high status males would have to have sex with something like two new women a day. That's obviously not true.

I have a friend who told me that he was 30 and a virgin. He was a good looking guy with a high status job. The fact that he was a virgin made him too shy to proposition women for sex, which led to a negative spiral and prevented him from getting laid. Just coming out to me as unfucked was a huge step for him.

I think these guys have always existed. If anything Internet only helps these guys. I can't see how the expanded dating pool can be anything but positive for the long term virgin development
 

Angry Floof

Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
Joined
Jul 17, 2008
Messages
14,236
Location
Sector 001
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Some of the change is due to the social revolution which began several decades ago. Women started getting good jobs and became less dependent on marriage. Some single women, who might have been actively seeking a husband in older times, found sex not to be a priority. In the 1970's there was a joke-meme: "A woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle."

But more recently, smartphones and social media have transformed society dramatically in several ways. Scary!

Incels are made, not born. Incels can't reproduce, so they must recruit. ...

...

Yes, definitely. Young, white males (yes, other males, but overwhelmingly white) are bombarded with ideological attempts to hijack their ignorance and animal brain aggression.

Fewer men are getting higher education these days. This absolutely does factor in to the number of young, white men being swayed by incel ideology and recruitment. More and more kids are gaming, too, which is also a factor because recruiters can easily access the attention of thousands or millions of young, white males. Another factor (in the US, at least) is the cultural attitude that white males are automatically good people who don't really need a lot of training in humility or ethics or personal responsibility, so those recruiters have a huge void to fill.

What's all this about "recruitment"? Men saddened by their "involuntary celibacy" would be happy to chat with others like them. So they "recruit"? Or is there more deliberate and insidious recruitment involved?

They may not have set out to recruit per se, but that's what it is. The most animal brained ideological movements always involve increasing numbers and social dominance.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I think it's a real phenomenon.

The basic issue is that women are choosier about sex than men. A woman may find herself in a position where there's no men available that she wants, but it's pretty hard to find a situation where there are no men willing to fuck her. There are a substantial number of men, however, that consider a low quality woman better than no woman.

It's quite possible for a substantial mismatch between sexless men and sexless women to exist because "sex" is not a yes/no. Consider a situation where half the men are getting sex on average twice a week and half are getting no sex at all, while the women are getting sex on average once a week.

The internet has made the problem much worse.

First, internet dating. It greatly enlarges the dating pools, thus setting up a situation where a fairly small group of good-looking men are being chased by a large pool of average women. The good looking guys get matches, the rest of them get little and the ones at the low end of the looks scale probably never get anything but scammers.

Second, it's brought the incels together and echo chambers amplify positions.

I don't think the maths add up. I've seen different numbers. But for the Incel story to work the high status males would have to have sex with something like two new women a day. That's obviously not true.

I have a friend who told me that he was 30 and a virgin. He was a good looking guy with a high status job. The fact that he was a virgin made him too shy to proposition women for sex, which led to a negative spiral and prevented him from getting laid. Just coming out to me as unfucked was a huge step for him.

I think these guys have always existed. If anything Internet only helps these guys. I can't see how the expanded dating pool can be anything but positive for the long term virgin development

There are certainly people like your example but I don't think that's the majority of the incels.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Some of the change is due to the social revolution which began several decades ago. Women started getting good jobs and became less dependent on marriage. Some single women, who might have been actively seeking a husband in older times, found sex not to be a priority. In the 1970's there was a joke-meme: "A woman needs a man the way a fish needs a bicycle."

But more recently, smartphones and social media have transformed society dramatically in several ways. Scary!





What's all this about "recruitment"? Men saddened by their "involuntary celibacy" would be happy to chat with others like them. So they "recruit"? Or is there more deliberate and insidious recruitment involved?

They may not have set out to recruit per se, but that's what it is. The most animal brained ideological movements always involve increasing numbers and social dominance.

You are not presenting any evidence of recruitment.

Simply by existing they attract others already in the same boat, it's not a status anyone desires so recruitment would be impossible.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

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

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,196
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
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.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,187
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
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

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,187
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
4,187
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
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

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,311
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 27, 2011
Messages
7,493
Location
Deep South
Basic Beliefs
Pragmatic
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,222
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,240
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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'.

I think this is Christian nonsense. It's not even old. It's Victorian nuclear family post industrial Christian nonsense.

Our instincts and drives for sexual attraction developed when we were hunter/gatherers. Our brains have not changed much since the.

1) A man's ability to take care of his woman and the child is a non-factor in a tribal society. Since they all help each other out. All the moms of the tribe, in effect act as a single super mom. All the dad's act as one super dad. They all take care of each other.

2) Who you have sex with is everybody's business. Since the number and ages of children has an impact on the mobility of the tribe. This would be true no matter if people understood the link between sex and pregnancy. Since it can be subconscious/instinct control.

3) Primates use sex for a range of things other than getting babies. Our closest relatives, the bonobo, use sex primarily for social bonding and social control. By limiting sex and punishing slutty females the matriarchal alpha-female group maintains control of the entire tribe.

There's also stuff that assumes tribalism. Like domestic violence. When we were hunter/gatherers I assume it was a non-issue since other men would instantly stop men who beat their wives. As would women stop women engaging in toxic behaviours.

I think the men collectively were a stronger bonded group with each other than they were with their wives. As were women bonded with each other more than with their men. And the emotional life we have is evolutionarily designed to compensate for that. To quickly create strong bonds, assuming that your opportunities to strengthen them were limited.

Not to mention that our social emotional brain is adapted for limited new people. It assumes a stable social group where everybody knows each other incredibly well and they know that we're all stuck with each other.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
So I don't necessarily think it's just about fatherhood. I think that's too reductionist and too myopically focused on just reproduction.

If the choice of who to have sex and reproduce with isn't about reproduction, what is it about?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,196
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
So I don't necessarily think it's just about fatherhood. I think that's too reductionist and too myopically focused on just reproduction.

If the choice of who to have sex and reproduce with isn't about reproduction, what is it about?

Among humans, the choice of who to have sex with is about enjoyment (it feels good). The choice of who to have sex with and reproduce is about it feels good and reproduction.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
So I don't necessarily think it's just about fatherhood. I think that's too reductionist and too myopically focused on just reproduction.

If the choice of who to have sex and reproduce with isn't about reproduction, what is it about?

Among humans, the choice of who to have sex with is about enjoyment (it feels good). The choice of who to have sex with and reproduce is about it feels good and reproduction.

Sure, but for nearly the entirety of our history the reproduction part wasn't an option, so our in-built instincts draw us to people who tend to be good reproductive partners. Granted, it can seem a little more muddled than this because the perfect partner, man or woman, rarely exists. For the most part we are forced to choose from who is available to us.

Again, I'd go back to my argument that if a man or woman lacks all of these things: physical attractiveness, character, social skills, and confidence, they will have a very hard time finding a sex partner. And on the converse, the qualities that make someone a desirable sex partner are the exact same qualities that make that person a good (or at least reasonable) choice to have children with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
If that were so then there would be no prostitution and little (much, much less) infidelity.

Right, birth control opens up the possibility of sleeping with less than ideal partners, but the pattern still pretty much holds. If sleeping with a prostitute we're still going to want to sleep with someone who is an ideal partner if they are available.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,055
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
If that were so then there would be no prostitution and little (much, much less) infidelity.

A lot of so-called infidelity is consensual, as you of course know. And a lot of non-consensual (meaning one of the legally married or socially committed partners is not in-the-know) infidelity is pleasurable [to the one in the know that is, as well as the one not in-the-know, at least with respect to the other's pretended ignorance]. A cuckold, for example, albeit a willing one, even a sneaky, divisive one, who feigns ignorance). A crafty cuck could, I suppose, though they could also be the one fooled as well as the one doing the fooling (around, lol), be the architect of a lover's triad, or a lover's orgy, or whatever the hell any of it all is.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,196
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
If that were so then there would be no prostitution and little (much, much less) infidelity.

Right, birth control opens up the possibility of sleeping with less than ideal partners, but the pattern still pretty much holds. If sleeping with a prostitute we're still going to want to sleep with someone who is an ideal partner if they are available.
That seems to take the movie, "Pretty Woman" much too seriously. I think reality is much more like I heard some comedian explain it, "You don't pay a prostitute for sex... You pay her to leave afterword."

And then, I can't imagine that a prostitute is only having sex with what they think of as "ideal partners".
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
12,270
If that were so then there would be no prostitution and little (much, much less) infidelity.

Right, birth control opens up the possibility of sleeping with less than ideal partners, but the pattern still pretty much holds. If sleeping with a prostitute we're still going to want to sleep with someone who is an ideal partner if they are available.
That seems to take the movie, "Pretty Woman" much too seriously. I think reality is much more like I heard some comedian explain it, "You don't pay a prostitute for sex... You pay her to leave afterword."

You may find this read worthwhile if you hadn't heard of it:

Proximate and Ultimate Causes

I'm not really learning anything from this thread.. so I'm out.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,830
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
If that were so then there would be no prostitution and little (much, much less) infidelity.

A lot of so-called infidelity is consensual, as you of course know. And a lot of non-consensual (meaning one of the legally married or socially committed partners is not in-the-know) infidelity is pleasurable [to the one in the know that is, as well as the one not in-the-know, at least with respect to the other's pretended ignorance]. A cuckold, for example, albeit a willing one, even a sneaky, divisive one, who feigns ignorance). A crafty cuck could, I suppose, though they could also be the one fooled as well as the one doing the fooling (around, lol), be the architect of a lover's triad, or a lover's orgy, or whatever the hell any of it all is.

Yeah, see, the problem with that is the unlikelihood of any of it being healthy.

For even the barest assumption of healthyness, consent has to happen, even if it's later obscured behind a safe word or "role behaviors", and at some point the roles must be put aside and the "role behaviors" reviewed maturely.

These are pretty important rules, and those who shirk them will most assuredly suffer for it.

It can most certainly be a game, even a game whose stakes are the relationship itself... But not giving people a choice of whether to play or a knowledge of what game is being played... That's just fucking shitty.
 
Top Bottom