Plus I think girls see it as affirmation they're pretty. So that contributes to it as well.
Only because girls can afford it more and have the opportunity more often.
To be fair, if men were a little more selective, and exercised more self control, women wouldn't have so many opportunities. This can be a hard sell, of course. Guys who are less selective, and have less self control, end up having sex with more women.Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Feminism played a role in that.
They do, but they shouldn't of course. Somewhere along the line, maybe because they lacked an upstanding father figure or male role model, they never got the memo that some guys will boink anything that moves, and those are the ones they should avoid. Unfortunately, impulsivity looks like confidence to those who don't know any better.Plus I think girls see it as affirmation they're pretty. So that contributes to it as well.
To be fair, if men were a little more selective, and exercised more self control, women wouldn't have so many opportunities. This can be a hard sell, of course. Guys who are less selective, and have less self control, end up having sex with more women.
They do, but they shouldn't of course. Somewhere along the line, maybe because they lacked an upstanding father figure or male role model, they never got the memo that some guys will boink anything that moves, and those are the ones they should avoid. Unfortunately, impulsivity looks like confidence to those who don't know any better.
Also, a good father figure would teach them that they are inherently lovable. That they don't need lots of male attention to prove it. While I'm not suggesting that being attractive is a bad thing, women shouldn't treat attention from guys as the primary source of their self worth.
A lot of them have been burned, unfortunately. Kids, family, and friends are important, so I get how they can find fulfillment there, but why not have both? Do those things really trump romantic companionship, or are they more afraid of it at this point?Good points, also I've noticed single women 40+ are finding other means of having their companionship satiated and it is typically through non-romantic means...and apparently, it trumps a male romantic companion or spouse even.
1. If they have kids, their kids and their kids events (band recitals, plays, soccer, etc) take up their time.
2. If they don't have kids, they hang with their other relatives, they have nieces and nephews to spend time with, or just hanging with other members of ther extended family.
3. Gal pals - they stick to their close circle of gal pals, like going on cruises with them or wherever.
I know this one woman, attractive, very professional has a teen daughter, spends a lot of time with her and her gal pals. She stays away from men "friends" because they typically wind up trying to turn it into a dating situation.
It's like some of these women, how to put it not so gross analogy, but...it's like they've been mentally sterilized. The interest to have a man in their life is no longer there.
I think they have a disdain of having to wake up next to someone 24/7. It becomes tiring or repetitive.
A lot of them have been burned, unfortunately. Kids, family, and friends are important, so I get how they can find fulfillment there, but why not have both? Do those things really trump romantic companionship, or are they more afraid of it at this point?
Some of it may be biological, but I think cultural expectations play a role too. As if physical intimacy needs to be a performance or act, rather than relaxing and affectionate. It can become tiring and repetitive for people at times, sure. Especially with unrealistic expectations, where they expect things to be elaborate and over-the-top all the time.
It's also possible that the interest is simply gone. This can happen within a marriage too, considering how many loveless marriages there seem to be. How much of it is due to age, bad past experiences, or simply letting themselves go and becoming unhealthy, it's hard to say. Others remain affectionate and interested well into their senior years.
I wonder if those who say "romantic relationships are not important at all" have ever experienced long-term bad luck or loneliness in that department.
I hate how everything's digital now. Everything's online. Internet, smartphones, smart TVs. Video games.Honestly, I don't think I'll miss the internet and social media except for a few parts, if it ever were to fall or disappear. I am part old soul. I wish living was like it was a generation ago or more.
A lot of them have been burned, unfortunately. Kids, family, and friends are important, so I get how they can find fulfillment there, but why not have both? .
I don't think Christians should identify as incel's. They are incel b/c they haven't found the one they want to marry.That is sort of what this thread is about. Our experience is just very common.
IThey are incel b/c they haven't found the one they want to marry.
Even many Christians who don't want to wait may have just not found one
Holding out for a good relationship doesn't equate to being an incel.
Like many Christians, I'm voluntarily abstinent. Considering all the STDs, personality disorders, negative attitudes toward sex, uproar over topics like abortion, and generally incompatible women out there, I'd rather wait. A number of factors need to align before I'll consider being intimate with someone.
As far as I'm concerned, I've never been celibate. I haven't taken a vow of celibacy, or even felt pulled in that direction. If I'm not celibate, and my abstinence is voluntary, then the term doesn't apply in either sense.
Sorry if I misunderstood or implied that you were saying something you weren't. My bad.You are talking to women? I dont get the incel vibe you nor did I say that holding out is incel. I said if you are not talking to anyone or meeting anyone is more deeper than mere abstinance. Can you honestly identify with the OP on this thread?