I think I've been whitepilled.

lol

Yeah I’ll have to read this over a few more times, but there might be something to it. It’s at least more sensible than most attempts to shame incels out of the blackpill.

I’ve been looking for that myself, and can’t quite find it. The closest I could find was this study where around 73.5% of people between less than 20 and 25, had sex at least monthly, with around 12% having it once or twice a year, and 14.5% having no sex. Partially the question depends on what you consider ‘sexually active’, I believe in medicine it’s at least once per month, but I could be wrong.

As for the virginity one, this article cites a study that indicates 14.3% of males and 12.3% of females are virgins between the ages of 20-25.

“Sexually active” isn’t a technical term in medicine. Your GP might ask you, but it’s arbitrary.

STD clinics ask if you’ve engaged in sexual activity in the last year. At least they did when I was smashing and had a scare (turns out it was just a pimple on my dick).

Males lie about not being virgins, females lie about being virgins.

I really do think people here hold themselves back an enormous amount. Whether it's lying to themselves about the minimum looks to get laid or obsessing over the past sexual relationships of women. Just chill, try to be realistic in expectation, and give it time

is this seriously an epiphany to people here?

you never spontaneously realized this obvious fact?

holy crap

holy crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ppn8E_Pvs

By 22 90% are sexually active.

Hahahhahahahhahahahhaa.

Not more than 30% are not virgins. And not more than 20% are sexually active.

lol. Cope.

High IQ post

Not even close. It doesn't address several issues such as differences in sex-drives between genders, the discrepancy in difficulties in attaining sex, the actual frequencies with which these non-virgins engaged in sexual activity.

I don't know how often the average male desires to have sex (once a day?, more often than that, less?), but I became sexually aware at a very young age and have always been very interested in intimacy with members of the opposite sex. I, and I assume many other men, have gone through thousands and thousands of days where sexual urges were prominent in our minds, yet we're technically not virgin if we've been successful just one time, that is, if on only one of those days our needs were met/sated. So, perhaps a much larger percentage of men are 'incel' (in regards to knowing they're going to go home, and once again go to bed lonely, and unfulfilled) the vast majority of the time, just not always, every day of their whole life like a 'truecel' would.

Well I guess I'm just in the bottom 10th percentile.

It may be that 90% of men have had sex once but 99% of women have had sex 3 times at least

Neither is actually true.

1) It's not all about looks. Looks play a part in some initial attraction, but proximity as well as others play a part too. If everything was about looks only, then blind people would never be attracted to anyone.

2) You can look around and see millions of people below 6/10 that are in relationships. One or two people are exceptions. But thousands or millions?

The blind people would never be attracted to anyone is where you lost me,

How are blind people attracted to looks?

Blind whores can still feel if the guy is tall

They can actually smell if the guy is Chad by his body odor.

Because money and status also plays a big part

Yes, millions. Do you ever go outside?

wrong only 20% of males are fucking in 2018

That's ridiculous.

cause its true? r/blackpillscience

Cope.

you forgot about two confounding variables which affect a man's probability that he is sexually active given his looks

financial and social status

But I thought the claim was that social status derives from lookism as well? And if that's true then how can social status produce sexual activity for ugly men if they wouldn't have it?

The only other thing you have to claim is that financial status brings social status, but by doing so you still knockdown a separate variable (social status), and the idea that finance can sustain whatever remaining figure there is either saying that most people are financially equipped or most people are chads. I'm quite sure neither of which fits your world view though, as it shouldn't.

On the other-hand you could say the social status of people is promoted entirely by other men, but that's still saying a lot for such a huge figure

That was the first good Normie point I've seen in a while. While it is true men obviously have a harder time getting laid. 9/10 figure it out at least once by 21

I had zen exactly once before 20. If I hadn’t put myself through some shit to change my habits it would’ve stayed that way for longer

Fakecels don't count

You do realize most of them lie for their pride right?

Yes

by age 22, 90% of men have lost their virginity and are sexually active.

Anyone in this sub could lose their virginity and become "sexually active" right this second if they wanted to.

You put zero effort into this. F.

Come back and try again.

Anyone in this sub could lose their virginity and become "sexually active" right this second if they wanted to.

I doubt that. Prostitutes are fairly expensive, and a decent chunk of incels don't have much money.

You're forgetting that attractiveness of people is shaped like a bell curve rather than percentiles

68% of people are between 4-6/10

16% are sub4

16% are above 6

92% are between 3-7

So 4% of people are above 7

4% of people are sub 3 roughly

3/10 would be bottom 4% on the bell curve.

Sounds like a whole lot of bs to me,sorry

The second premise is misunderstood a lot from normies like you.

We don't claim that every single below 6/10 is an incel lmao WTF. They will have a much harder time having a loyal gf, put in a lot more effort, and have very few partner. You have to remember that the top 20% of men are having 60% of all the sex (confirmed by data btw). Less than 6/10 are the dudes obsessing over PUA and TRP then getting settled for by an ex-slut who spent her youth fucking the top 20%. It's over in the sense th

The CDC says that only 14% of males between the ages of 20-24 have not had vaginal intercourse and 12% of women in the same age bracket in the year 2015.

15% virgin at the 20-25 range for males.

Thanks for confirming my approximation

The OP goes off track by equating "has had sex ever" with "is sexually active."

Yeah, it’s a huge mistake to equate the two. There were poll results (I think from Vox) posted here a few weeks ago that showed that 14% of millennial men haven’t had sex in the last 12 months. They did the poll because inceldome is all the rage now.

It raises the question of what qualifies as an incel. Does one have to be a virgin? Obviously young teens, who want to fuck but can’t, don’t count. What if someone lucked out and banged some drunk slut, then went 5 or 6 years without speaking to another human being (lol “Normies get out!”)? What if they’ve dated in the past, but it’s been a year since they’ve received any female attention?

My internal thinking of "who is an incel" is as follows:

If you are out of high school and still a virgin, despite desiring sex, you are an incel. (Some chance that you might end up turning out to be a late blooming normie.) If you've only had sex with prostitutes, even though you'd like, but cannot achieve, unpaid sex, you are an incel. If you've had 1-2 one night stands, and haven't been able to replicate that for over a year, you can call yourself an incel if you think it fits you, especially if these happened under special circumstances (alcohol, etc.). (But you're probably just a low-tier normie; I've never had any special circumstances come up...) If you've ever been in a relationship for 3 months or more, you're not an incel, even if you're on the mother of all dry spells.

We all know there are betabux

I had to google it. My new favorite word.

It's not a bell curve and it's not linearly distributed. Sexual dimorphism in men is much greater than in women.

Also, 6/10 is normie tier. Incels are 4/10 and under

Wouldn’t that mean it shifted to the right, I.e. women consider a 7 to be average?

It definitely shifted for women. Fat girls used to be 3’s. Now 66% of women are fat, so by definition fat girls are 5’s.

90% of men have lost their virginity by self reporting it(people lie). Tons of these encounters were probably either with hookers or really drunk girls who didn't know what was going on as well. Just depends what you want to count

by age 22, 90% of men have lost their virginity and are sexually active.

Stopped reading here. Adult male virginity rates are pushing 20% these days. You're full of shit lol

I actually kept reading, your premises are wrong. You're assuming women judge men fairly to begin with. The studies are very consistent on this: women consider ~90% of men to be below average. It's not a linear distribution, it's a severely skewed bell curve. It doesn't matter what absolute rating a man gets, he will more often than not be considered below average and inadequate.

Yeah, OP is definitely full of shit. He arbitrarily assumes that half of 22 year old male virgins are volcels, and uses his baseless dogshit assumption to declare 3/10 incels impossible. If he used 10% instead of his made up 5% incel, 3/10 incels would exist.

And of course, incel=/=virgin. If it did, we'd just say virgins. No point in using the word incel. The share for non-sexually active men (incels) aged 22 to 35 is about one-in-six. Not sexualy active meaning no sex in past year. r/incels said that the most common mark was just six months )

Your sources are garbage. Put more effort into research. F.

Lol can't wait to see your source for the 20% bs claim

Better looking you are the easier it is to get pussy but let's not pretend that getting laid is that difficult for the vast majority of people.

90% of men have lost their virginity and are sexually active.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I think I do remember seeing a stastic that 90% of men lose their virginity by age 22. But all of them being sexually active is FAR from the truth

Damn you almost destroyed this whole sub with math.

However, claim 1) is not debunked from this data.

You can also use the same data to draw a different conclusion. If you're below 3/10 it's over. People on this sub might just be < 3. This is a very small subreddit so that's entirely possible.

Someone also mentioned proximity so yeah you could just be a 3/10 in your area.

A year ago or something, I got a letter from a research institution from the government where I was asked to fill in an online survey regarding sexual activity. For completing the survey I would get a gift code of 10 euros for a well known web shop.

I wanted that 10 euro. But of course the biggest crime for normies is to be a male virgin past the age of 21. So, there was only one option: lie. I was simply too paranoid that my name would be attached in a database to one of the proofs to make you the biggest failure as a man in society and become the laughing stock of all low tier normies.

My point is: all non-severly-autistic men and boys take up ques from society that being virgin is something to be ashamed of and ridiculed for and therefore best to be sure is to just lie.

But of course the biggest crime for normies is to be a male virgin past the age of 21.

Can't tell if autistic or sarcastic.

No one gives a shit about your virginity, dude. Only you, only you.

I could take a guess who your favorite mod is

Cool story. Link us to your FB account so we can test your theory that no one cares.

[removed]

Its exaggerated. But when a man is called virgin it is always used as insult.

Are you seriously that blind? People literally get persecuted for that shit.

citation neeeded.

Not for me since I've experienced it first hand. How could it possibly be so hard to accept that you need proof, JFL.

Sure, if it's pizza but everyone knows cheese pizza lovers ought to neck themselves rather than indulge.

That happened

It did. Of course they asked all types of other questions like how do you view same sex relationships etc.

The mistake in this post is that you said 90% of men are sexually active. That is not true. Most incels here can get sex, but they can never feel true love. So black pill wins again boyo

This changes everything

90% of men have lost their virginity and are sexually active.

you're not considering the methodology by which those surveys are conducted. they're literally just asking men and women and assuming that those answers are honest.

when virginity is so highly tied into societal respect, you cannot expect men to accurately self report as a whole. likewise, women will not accurately self-report their own promiscuity either.

theres no point, but instinctually the status heirarchy is all men have if they're not at the very top or very bottom, i doubt they can mentally compartmentalize the fact that its just a survey. :2

There are studies confirming that both men and women lie in these studies.

90% of men have lost their virginity and are sexually active.

Can't be true, there's no way that 100% of men who lost their virginity are sexually active.

It's not entirely clear whether the "x/10" looks system follows a linear distribution or a bell curve.

Most data suggests that it probably follows a normal distribution but women perceive it as a negative exponential.

This. OP needs to fucking lurk more. That, or he's just arguing in bad faith. It's probably the latter, since he hasn't addressed any of these points that casually BTFO his post despite like four different people bringing them up.

It's never about being a virgin or having had sex once. It's about having a healthy, active sex life.

So yes, out of 100 22 year old men, 90% have "already" lost their virginity. But how often do they get laid inside and outside of a relationship they might have or not have?

The use of the word iuncel is such bullshit now that it has this negative connotations.

Is a "sub 6" man who manages to get laid once every 12 months not living involuntarily celibate for the remaining 50 weeks of the year?

Is a guy who does not identify as "incel" because he had a girlfriend once (3 years ago) not living in involuntary celibacy, too?

You're misunderstanding the core beliefs which define the blackpill. We certainly are not suggesting that average looking men are predominately virgins. That said, there has been a notable increase in male celibacy rates over the past several years, and the trend is continuing.

Rather, what the blackpill espouses is essentially this: there is a certain male sexual elite—"Chads" and possibly "Chadlites", roughly the top 15-20% of men—who are able to effortlessly obtain sexual favours from women, and are the exclusive objects of female sexual adoration. Chad can obtain sex from a woman instantly. No dinners, no awkward conversations, no accusations of 'misogyny' or 'entitlement'. Chad gets what Chad wants. Moreover, even in non-sexual contexts, women treat such men vastly better than they do non-Chads. The non-Chads consist of "lesser" men who women typically date if they cannot obtain Chad, or wish for someone who provides them financial stability. Such relationships are often subject to hypergamy on part of the female, for once she is able to attract a Chad, the inclination to branch-swing is irresistible.

The chief point is that even though the non-Chads may get sex (many of them do), the relationships with their women are not validational from the perspective of the woman. Rather, they are transactional. These are the guys who buy their "girlfriend" gifts, dinners, shower her with compliments, romance etc. in an effort to get the occasional fuck. In spite of this, the woman isn't, say, gossiping with her girlfriends about how awesome of a lover this non-Chad is. The woman isn't thinking of him day and night. She isn't fawning over him, nor is her cunt dripping at work at the thought of him plowing her later that night. At a primal level, the relationship with the non-Chad doesn't trigger the same biochemical reactions that the relationship with Chad does. In a very real sense, the relationship is just strategic; a glorified form of prostitution. As far as I'm concerned, these men are effectively incels too, but not quite at the level of the "truecels", which I will describe below.

There is what I would describe a genuine truecel class, which consists perhaps of the bottom 5-10% of men. Some are hideous facially; others might be manlets or autists. These are the men who remain virgins well into their adult lives. These are the sort of men women simply hate.

Your black-post is as reasonable and attentive to the topic as can be. But I still digress, OP may not have rebutted this view of things at least, but there is still little proving it compared to it's contrary. I've seen blackpill stats and all but even with them their numbers always leave plenty of room for more thought.

Rather, what the blackpill espouses is essentially this: there is a certain male sexual elite—"Chads" and possibly "Chadlites", roughly the top 15-20% of men—who are able to effortlessly obtain sexual favours from women, and are the exclusive objects of female sexual adoration.

Obviously, some men have it better than the rest of us, but you're wrong on "exclusive objects of female sexual adoration". Trust me: there are average-looking beta guys out there whose wives adore them and aren't thinking about "Chad".

Chad can obtain sex from a woman instantly. No dinners, no awkward conversations, no accusations of 'misogyny' or 'entitlement'. Chad gets what Chad wants.

I know some guys like this. I don't think they get "what Chad wants". Most of the guys who pull high-frequency sexuality off do it by lowering their standards. I lived with someone like that– and he was a decent guy, really, not a Chad-type douche– and the girls he brought into the apartment were mostly at the 3/10 level (though he dated at parity) that incels wouldn't touch.

The non-Chads consist of "lesser" men who women typically date if they cannot obtain Chad, or wish for someone who provides them financial stability. Such relationships are often subject to hypergamy on part of the female, for once she is able to attract a Chad, the inclination to branch-swing is irresistible.

That's not true, though. The idea that women are attracted to the guys on posters in 14-year-old girls' bedrooms is... quite off the mark. Most women, if they're satisfied in bed, aren't interested in a "branch swing" to some jerk who's probably terrible at sex (because he never had to learn how to be good at it).

non-Chads may get sex (many of them do), the relationships with their women are not validational from the perspective of the woman. Rather, they are transactional.

Yeah, that's ridiculous. It's not remotely true. Unless I, and plenty of other average-looking men whose beautiful wives adore them, are "Chad" and don't know it. But I'm pretty damn sure that if I posted my picture, you'd say that I'm not Chad.

These are the guys who buy their "girlfriend" gifts, dinners, shower her with compliments, romance etc. in an effort to get the occasional fuck.

My advice: don't try to buy your way in to a woman's pants. It doesn't work; it's a bit skeezy and it comes as insulting to women. It's pretty obvious when a guy's trying to do this. Go to the restaurants you want to go to, where you would eat if you were single. Don't go the $200 restaurant because you think it'll get you laid. It probably won't, and if you're a guy of average financial needs, you'll be out of your element there and it'll show. You're much better off going on an inexpensive date where you're comfortable and can show your personality at its best. I recommend a board game group, if you're the typical nerdy guy, with friends who'll talk you up. Do something cheap or free. If she drops you because you're not taking her on $200 dinner dates, then she's worth being dropped by.

She isn't fawning over him, nor is her cunt dripping at work at the thought of him plowing her later that night.

I've never asked any girl I dated whether her "cunt dripped at work"... but I think you're overrating this particular aspect. I don't think you understand female sexuality as it actually is. It's not the vicious monster you're imagining. Feminism is actually good for non-Chad males.

Here's a bit of reality: female sexuality is subtle and it takes a good 20–30 minutes of foreplay to get a woman warmed up. (Spending $200 on dinner is not foreplay and it's not hot; it's desperate.) Well-adjusted women prefer the decent, patient man (not the nice-guy doormat, though) over the "Chad" who's selfish in bed and terrible outside of it.

In a very real sense, the relationship is just strategic; a glorified form of prostitution. As far as I'm concerned, these men are effectively incels too, but not quite at the level of the "truecels", which I will describe below.

That's false. My wife will probably make more money in the long term than I do. It doesn't matter.

You should focus on being fun to be around and learning how to treat people with respect but still be respected. Then you won't need $200 dinners to convince women to go out with you.

Women literally want to exterminate them.

Not true at all, any more than men want to exterminate (rather than just, "tend to ignore") unattractive women.

good post brother.

Yes, the reason why it looks as though women are all brainless and cancer is because the one's without any individuality ( the one's who will like the same type of appearance ) will group up inevitably, And conversely the one's who have individuality and diversity in taste find no reason to group up. The collective group of anti-personalities will amplify the perceived-to-be terrible state of things because they also have no collective anti-thesis due to individuality. The then only collective counter-culture you have left to represent the common individuals are incels. The reason why is simple; incels themselves have little personality, and that isn't their faults either, they often admit to ceasing self-expression in fear that the collective of anti-personalities will crush them whole.

• Looks get your foot through the door and then you may stay if you have an adequate personality.

• Sub6 doesn’t mean it’s over for you, you just have to try a lot harder the uglier you are.

• Men (and women) lie in surveys about their sex life. Confirmed by studies.

• Having had sex once doesn’t equal an active sex life.

• Incel doesn’t equal virgin.

Mathcel

Male feminist married normie, 34 years old, probably a 6/10.

I think both premises are wrong.

Physical attraction is important, but the 10-point scale seems to be people's representation of how attractive they think other people think someone is. Take it from an ancient (now get off my lawn) sex-having normie: when you're in the sack, you're not thinking about what other people think. A "6/10" whom you're madly in love with, and who's into the moment with you, when there's good sexual chemistry, becomes a subjective 37/10 sex goddess. A "9/10" with sexual hangups (many model-esque women have been abused; it isn't their fault, but it's not pleasant for either person) who just lays there is a disappointment and the experience isn't worth it.

Who the person is, that's what matters: her character, her sexual energy, her intelligence. It matters in bed and outside of it. Those things will, as I said, make her subjectively way hotter than the "objective" view of her physicality. Obviously, she needs to be cute enough that you're attracted to her, but that doesn't mean you need a model. What other people think of her is about the least important thing in the moment. It doesn't matter to the relationship, it doesn't matter during sex, and it's probably negatively correlated (beyond 6/10) to having a healthy life history.

Which means that this 10-point-scale thinking is actually quite beta. Only losers care whether the other guys find their girlfriends attractive. From an ancient married sex-haver who's dated models in the past, in spite of his average looks: I say, other guys can have them. The modeling profession, especially, fucks with women and I'm too old to sort through that shit.

What matters is not the 0-10 what-everyone-else-will-think scale; it's the 0/1 binary scale. "1" means enough attraction for dating and sexuality to start and the sex-god(dess) effect can set in and take that person to subjective 37/10. "0" means it ain't happening; move on and try somewhere else.

So, spoiler alert: guys get rejected a lot. A 6/10 guy like me probably registers as a binary-scale "1" with only 20 percent of women. A 9/10 might get 30–40 percent. A 3/10 might get a "1" 5% of the time. That makes it harder; I'm not going to sugarcoat that. But a binary-scale 1 is still a 1. You have to work harder if you're below-average looking, but there's enough variation in tastes that some women will still find you hot, and you're by no means doomed to be an incel.

This is because over 90% of people is in between 4/10 and 6/10, most of these are normies which can get to 7/10 by dressing nice, getting a haircut and losing weight. They probably have done this at least once to get sex. And having had sex one or a few times within +/- 8 years is still VERY LITTLE compared to the average Chad. If you assume that at least a majority of these fucks were given while drunk, this is definitely doable for an average bloke. Also volcels are a lot rarer than you'd think (and I'm talking permavolcels, not someone who's fat and hasn't looksmaxxed yet.) Like 95% of 22-year-olds is atheists in America.

Why the fuck do you have to keep letting us know you’re a male feminist in every comment you fucking weirdo?

How am I a male feminist?

90 are having sex

No, 90 have had some sex at some point.

A pity fuck, for example.

90% have lost their virginity by age 22

this is just a blatant lie. these kind of surveys only get normies and chads answering

Lol at believing government stats on a stigmatized topic, especially one that shames you if you answer one way.

Betabux and general cuckolds do get laid; it's still over for them in the sense that they will never be able to maintain a healthy relationship with women (ie. a relationship based on mutual physical attraction) and will always get the short stick of this dynamic.

This is such a low IQ post.

someone who has lost their virginity can easily become an incel later on.

it's over for sub 6 doesn't mean it's mathematically impossible for an average looking guy to get laid. Interpreting it to mean tha-

I don't know why I even bother.

"Have lost their virginity" is key here

I don't get why we don't accept our minority status as part of the blackpill. Why pretend we're even a sizeable minority when we're not?

Absolutely correct right up until the ending there. Just because lots of men can have romantic relationships doesn't mean our behaviour is at fault. Genetics are responsible for that.

With respect no. They are blaming the factors that are to blame. Thousands of utterly depraved, evil and cruel people exist in happy relationships every day. You can't accept the reality of serial spouse abusers and the idea that your personality has an even measurable affect on your success with the opposite sex.

Furthermore you cannot disregard the fact of platonic relationships. Most of my friends are women. I lived with nothing but women at university. I am on good relations with all the girls at my work, aside from my manager who isn't on good relations with anyone. As a friend all of them seem to consider me more than fair game. Why not as a romantic partner? Because I'm ugly as fuck.

I'm sorry but your views on this are completely unsupported by any evidence I can see.

Did you go to the Ted Cruz School of Rhetoric or something? Every response you write is shifting the goalposts or intentionally fudging definitions and terms. u/theemperorhirohito, don't be afraid to call out people for arguing in bad faith like this.

I'll make a few scattered points here against your general presence.

Let's assume some truth to your OP. I'd say that's a rather charitable reading due to the various arguments you have left unaddressed suggesting the proof is nowhere near iron-tight, not to mention your dubious near-conflation of "sexually active" and "not a virgin". It still doesn't prove what you are attempting to prove, at least not against an actual argument rather than a strawman. Incels are a fringe group in society. Hell, incels are probably even a fringe group here on Braincels. Nobody's saying sex and love are impossible for large swaths of men, and it's unquestionably trivial to point out the contrary. But it is impossible, or at least absurdly unlikely, for a fraction of men. That's the case you need to argue against. It's difficult; that's why you didn't argue it. It's not surprising that normies come here all the time trying to tell us that we can't possibly be what we say we are. We just haven't "examined our own behaviors" (neoliberalism is such a poisonous ideology, even to those who might otherwise disavow it). Hilarious.

I'd also add that "face = everything" is a contested point here as well. You aren't "sticking it to all those crazy incels", it's not a consensus view. Lookism is a little more nuanced. What is most often meant by LOOKS is the gestalt of physical attractiveness. Height, weight, face, hair, frame/build, and complexion all play a role. Face is one of the most important traits, but it can be marginally compensated for by other traits. Not completely. Marginally. A major deficiency in face or height is usually damning.

Moreover, you're willing to admit "I know plenty ugly men in relationships" as worthy evidence despite its utter uselessness - you do? I don't. What is an ugly man? You might be surprised. Could we possibly be more unattractive than the ugliest man you know in a relationship?

But you glossed over another poster providing a perfectly clear psychological explanation as to why men might lie on these sexual activity surveys. The "point" is that virginity is so stigmatized in society that for a man to admit it ANONYMOUSLY to others - hell, even admitting it to himself - it is extremely distressing.

Back to neoliberalism. You seem to chiefly be concerned with convincing us that it is really our fault in some moralistic sense. We're just inattentive, or not trying, or shifting the blame. Let's discard pure lookism. I have no idea how you can in the same line of discussion make the genetic determinism case re: autism and then take an attitude that genetic determinism somehow is inapplicable to incels. Is it not apparent to you that many incels are also autistic? Do you not see how that is a genetic problem that causes social, romantic, and economic harm? (Before the limp reply: "some autistic people are in relationships" is analogous to "Obama was president so racism is over")

I won't reply further since you lack the courtesy to properly address my fellow incels.

90 aren't having sex. They HAVE had sex or so they claim (much reaserch shows that 80% of sex is had by 20% of men in college if I'm not mistaken) and who wants to admit they aren't sexually active in their 20s? Out of a 100 I'd say no more than half are actually active at most.

Imagine trying to make 100% solid foolproof claims based off of a data set of AVERAGES, some of which are theoretical averages. I can see where you guys are coming from on some stuff, but come on man. At least try not to see the worst in everything.

Yeah, it’s a huge mistake to equate the two. There were poll results (I think from Vox) posted here a few weeks ago that showed that 14% of millennial men haven’t had sex in the last 12 months. They did the poll because inceldome is all the rage now.

It raises the question of what qualifies as an incel. Does one have to be a virgin? Obviously young teens, who want to fuck but can’t, don’t count. What if someone lucked out and banged some drunk slut, then went 5 or 6 years without speaking to another human being (lol “Normies get out!”)? What if they’ve dated in the past, but it’s been a year since they’ve received any female attention?

Wouldn’t that mean it shifted to the right, I.e. women consider a 7 to be average?

It definitely shifted for women. Fat girls used to be 3’s. Now 66% of women are fat, so by definition fat girls are 5’s.

With respect no. They are blaming the factors that are to blame. Thousands of utterly depraved, evil and cruel people exist in happy relationships every day. You can't accept the reality of serial spouse abusers and the idea that your personality has an even measurable affect on your success with the opposite sex.

Furthermore you cannot disregard the fact of platonic relationships. Most of my friends are women. I lived with nothing but women at university. I am on good relations with all the girls at my work, aside from my manager who isn't on good relations with anyone. As a friend all of them seem to consider me more than fair game. Why not as a romantic partner? Because I'm ugly as fuck.

I'm sorry but your views on this are completely unsupported by any evidence I can see.