The Warped World of Incel Extremists

[RDKirk]

I have to disagree with some of the assumptions here. First, that most of what keeps incels from finding dates is genetic features out of their control. That is something the guys in that group perceive but I don’t think it’s true at all. The slang term was invented by them. And the extremist designation comes not from their inability to get dates but from their attitude towards women (and “chads”). They do, in fact, have unreasonable expectations for women. They often explicitly state they don’t want overweight women or “ugly” women. They believe really horrible, untrue things about women (AWALT, etc.). Women reject them because they are angry, miserable, and hate women, not because they are ugly or awkward.

While I agree with your post, I'll say here as I say often, "There is always more than one thing going on."

In the past, people who had less-than-"ideal" genetics would be led toward each other--in fact limited to each other--by social mechanisms. Those social mechanisms began to break down right after WWII, but they practically disappeared in the 90s with social media.

As we've discussed in this thread, social media tends to focus the attention of all people above their own "leagues" and caused 80% of women to compete for 20% of men. That wasn't the case fifty years go.

On top of that, many of the Millennial generation and the following Z generation also began to live far more virtually than ever before. The same social media phenomenon that gives cyber bullying enough power to cause young girls to commit suicide also creates incels. There's always more than one thing happening.

 

[RDKirk]

And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, tinder and such are geared towards hook-ups, and men get more out of hook-ups than women. Just because an average looking woman can sometimes hook up with drunk “Chad” at 2am, doesn’t mean she ends up getting what she wanted, if all she wanted was sex.

Once a good male friend said to me “sex is like pizza, even when it’s bad it’s better than nothing!” I laid out for him just how bad “bad” sex could be for a woman.

Along the same lines, more than one man has said, "The worst sex I ever had was wonderful."

Yes, in general men get more out of "hook up culture" more than women. This has been one of the lies radical feminism has pawned off on women: That a liberated woman should practice the same sexual behavior as a licentious man. The truth is that society never actually approved of licentiousness in men, either.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's a chicken & the egg situation...

Do the hate women because of some "wiring malfunction" in their brain that was there all along, or is because they've been rejected and ridiculed by women who saw them as "less than" because they weren't good looking or had money?

That obviously doesn't make their attitudes right, nor does it justify their behavior...

But I've never seen a good looking or millionaire "Incel"

Again, I disagree with your assumptions about why they are being rejected. Plenty of, in @RDKirk ’s words “homely” guys out there who are married. And most of us aren’t millionaires. In fact, I’ve mostly dated (and ended up marrying) guys who were average looking and made less money than I. But they all were very charming, kind-hearted, adventurous, and confident. I always chose men for personality, never for looks In fact, I have dated rich and very attractive men, but didn’t commit to them. I appreciate a man who makes me feel good.

Now, right off the top of my head I know so many guys who are below average looking, poor or working class, and are married! But guess what? Incels wouldn’t ever date women like their wives, who are also below average in attractiveness. These guys can’t imagine that it’s the person, not the body, that is sexy and loveable and tgat if you get to know someone you might find them attractive in ways you didn’t at first glance. But to get there, you have to like the opposite sex and want to be friends with them.

 

[Sparagmos]

While I agree with your post, I'll say here as I say often, "There is always more than one thing going on."

In the past, people who had less-than-"ideal" genetics would be led toward each other--in fact limited to each other--by social mechanisms. Those social mechanisms began to break down right after WWII, but they practically disappeared in the 90s with social media.

As we've discussed in this thread, social media tends to focus the attention of all people above their own "leagues" and caused 80% of women to compete for 20% of men. That wasn't the case fifty years go.

On top of that, many of the Millennial generation and the following Z generation also began to live far more virtually than ever before. The same social media phenomenon that gives cyber bullying enough power to cause young girls to commit suicide also creates incels. There's always more than one thing happening.

I can’t disagree with any of that!

 

[Jamdoc]

I'll just leave this here...it's an SNL skit, it's funny because it's true. lol

Funny but also very sad
mind you I agree people shouldn't have to accept advances from people they aren't attracted to but a simple fejection is enough there should be no need to escalate it to authority or be nasty about it unless they're persistent after you've clearly rejected it.

He got shot down in flames, he's probably already feeling bad about it.

 

[bèlla]

And, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, tinder and such are geared towards hook-ups, and men get more out of hook-ups than women. Just because an average looking woman can sometimes hook up with drunk “Chad” at 2am, doesn’t mean she ends up getting what she wanted, if all she wanted was sex

Oh I really want to say something but this is CF! ~lol

There's a difference between being celibate and not having an option. It's easy to be abstinent when no one desires you. Denying your flesh when you have options is a different animal.

I think there's something to be said about the drunk hookup. My standard would never allow me to consider someone who wasn't publicly passable.

How do you bring him home? Tainting the rep is a no-no.

Once a good male friend said to me “sex is like pizza, even when it’s bad it’s better than nothing!” I laid out for him just how bad “bad” sex could be for a woman.

Gen pop for the win.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Now, right off the top of my head I know so many guys who are below average looking, poor or working class, and are married! But guess what? Incels wouldn’t ever date women like their wives, who are also below average in attractiveness. These guys can’t imagine that it’s the person, not the body, that is sexy and loveable and tgat if you get to know someone you might find them attractive in ways you didn’t at first glance. But to get there, you have to like the opposite sex and want to be friends with them.

But isn't that sort of "talking down" so to speak based on societal viewpoints?

The very notion that "you're below average looking, so you just need to settle for another person who's below average looking" is just another variation of the same type of societal constructs that are aimed at convincing other under privileged groups into thinking "you don't have it that bad", yes?


Sort of resembles when people say "even a poor person in America is in the top 5% in the world in terms of quality of life, so they should just be happy with it, and that's why we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes for social programs...


I'm speaking partially tongue-in-cheek here, just to highlight some double standards with regards to how society views different kinds of under-privileged people based on the prevailing societal messaging.

 

[RDKirk]

The very notion that "you're below average looking, so you just need to settle for another person who's below average looking" is just another variation of the same type of societal constructs that are aimed at convincing other under privileged groups into thinking "you don't have it that bad", yes?

No.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Candidate 5: I strongly believe that women are naturally intended to submit to men. I believe in patriarchy and in natural order where a woman is a property of a man. I believe, nevertheless, that submission should be classy, polite, elegant. Do this ideas offend you?

Absolutely. Next!

Candidate 9: Have you ever considered an experienced older man my age? Who better to train a girl like you than an older man like me? Take a chance and let's talk about it and see where it leads.

I didn't realize I needed a trainer. I'm not an animal. Next!

Whew ... There's some red flags for a lady if ever I'd seen one.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

For some reason the posts lately remind of of some Three Days Grace songs.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

It's easy to be abstinent when no one desires you. Denying your flesh when you have options is a different animal.

Truth.

 

[Sparagmos]

This has been one of the lies radical feminism has pawned off on women: That a liberated woman should practice the same sexual behavior as a licentious man. The truth is that society never actually approved of licentiousness in men, either.

Few feminists I know believe that, however I think a lot of them had to learn the hard way. I have called myself a feminist since I was about 20, but never saw promiscuity as a path to liberation. I feel like the feminists that did were the “Cosmo magazine reading” type, trying to reconcile the values of feminism and the desire for male attention that ultimately stemmed from low self-worth. There was a time when some feminists thought that men and women were only different on the “outside,” but now we know that testosterone, estrogen, and the lesser known hormones all have effects on a lot more than our genitalia.

 

[RDKirk]

Few feminists I know believe that, however I think a lot of them had to learn the hard way. I have called myself a feminist since I was about 20, but never saw promiscuity as a path to liberation. I feel like the feminists that did were the “Cosmo magazine reading” type, trying to reconcile the values of feminism and the desire for male attention that ultimately stemmed from low self-worth. There was a time when some feminists thought that men and women were only different on the “outside,” but now we know that testosterone, estrogen, and the lesser known hormones all have effects on a lot more than our genitalia.

Those feminists are not gone yet, by a long shot, and they're holding the microphone.

 

[Sparagmos]

But isn't that sort of "talking down" so to speak based on societal viewpoints?

The very notion that "you're below average looking, so you just need to settle for another person who's below average looking" is just another variation of the same type of societal constructs that are aimed at convincing other under privileged groups into thinking "you don't have it that bad", yes?


Sort of resembles when people say "even a poor person in America is in the top 5% in the world in terms of quality of life, so they should just be happy with it, and that's why we shouldn't have to pay higher taxes for social programs...


I'm speaking partially tongue-in-cheek here, just to highlight some double standards with regards to how society views different kinds of under-privileged people based on the prevailing societal messaging.

Hmm, I think I understand what you’re saying but I just don’t see it that way. Perhaps it stems from the fact that I heavily reject the notion that “looks” should matter as much as they do to sone people. I’m not denying biology, just saying biology made us able to be attracted and reproduce with less than good looking people. And my circle of friends contains a WIDE spectrum in regards to looks. The good looking people aren’t any happier by any means. Whereas poverty most certainly correlates with unhappiness, it causes tremendous stress.

I had really bad acne when I was younger and was very much a late bloomer in regards to looks. So I’ve been on both sides. When I was 18, I felt really unattractive and boys my age were not interested in me. I had to learn to see value in myself without feeling “pretty.” And now I’m getting older and “losing” my looks again. I do therefore feel genuine empathy for less than average looking folks, but I don’t believe they experience less love than good-looking people unless they are shallow themselves and refuse to date people like them. Once you get past your 20’s, that’s just not what life is about.

 

[Sparagmos]

Those feminists are not gone yet, by a long shot, and they're holding the microphone.

I guess that’s the media for you, that attitude is more sexy so it sells.

 

[Jamdoc]

So it seems like while none of these are an excuse for their behavior, there are several societal factors at play.

1. and probably the biggest, Marriage is seriously weakened as an institution. No fault divorce results in people not reconciling and splitting up, and knowing the splitup happens so often and how much it ruins people's lives, people just don't get married as much as they used to. Leading to...
2. Internet dating being the norm, people are judged on superficial things a lot of the time, their looks, the little blurbs they put in their profile, not a lot to actually base a relationship on, leading to...
3. Hypergamy/Hookup culture, people hopping from partner to partner for casual sex rather than settling down, resulting in more women flocking to fewer men and leaving more men sitting on the sidelines kind of left out.

Other circumstances that contribute to these 3, are people are going to school longer and focusing on career more, starting to seek serious relationships later in life, if they ever do at all, which ends up having people value themselves so highly that they price themselves out of the market.
Lower fertility rates result in more divorces as couples will be able to reconcile more often if there are children involved and the divorce would be damaging to them (and it seriously is)
on top of that, because of high divorce rates, many children basically grow up without dads in their lives, and we already know just how damaging that can be to have a man grow up without a father.
I seriously wonder how many of these Incels came from fatherless households.

Seems like another case of God knew what He was doing when He designed the family unit the way He did.

 

[bèlla]

Social media is driven by clicks. The reason you have Insta girls, the rich set, and mini Martha’s is because of the population. That’s their aspiration and the genie serves it up in large doses.

Most people realize they’ll never have the same. The majority of successful digital entrepreneurs aren’t attractive. They’re average looking. The ones who get the most attention are doing things that cost time and money. It reinforces the ideal.

Dating wise, effort is celebrated. That’s where the gap is coming from. If you workout everyday and spend an hour getting dressed you’ll look better. If you invest in a nice wardrobe you’ll add to that.

The majority won’t do it. Nor do they tidy every day, make photogenic meals, spend hours on craft or DIY projects, or run around the world. They’re not willing to make the sacrifices to do so. They want their convenience.

I showed someone a photo yesterday and I’ll leave it here. This is a look popularized by Kim Kardashian. It minimizes flaws and enhances good features. This is what they’re seeing on Insta. Most men would notice the girl on the right more so than the other.

 

[bèlla]

Whew ... There's some red flags for a lady if ever I'd seen one.

Indeed. Who says that when trying to get acquainted? In what planet is that a winning line? No wonder they're single!

 

[ThisIsMe123]

When I was thirty, I did happen meet a woman who knew what Star Trek was (she caught, in conversation, the link between Star Trek and "rich Corinthian leather")...

...and I married her. That was nearly 40 years ago, before TNG had even begun airing.

Ricardo Montalbán? Or Deadpool?

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Christians did that for most of Christian history, to be honest. Everything Jesus and the apostles had to say about marriage was within the framework of couples having been arranged without concern for attraction.

You have to admit, there's not much in the Bible or Christianity, outside of being aligned in belief, regarding compatibility with their marital partners. It was quite irrelevant actually. If you were short, well, a future wife would have be okay with it...or maybe they were okay with it? *shrug*