I used to think that too until those $1 sliders popped up. My Jew mentality couldn’t resist and I’ve been going hard on those Buffalo chicken sliders since the $1 Taco Bell stackers went out
You ever just take a perfectly fine sandwich and swamp it in mayonnaise for no reason? It's generally a problem with fast food in general but it's especially prevalent in Arbys. The cheese tastes like garbage and all of their little sides seem like frozen processed food they microwaved before serving. I have never once been to an Arbys and left feeling satisfied. No extra layer of shitty plastic beef will make up for the flavor, overpriced sandwiches, and unclean tables accompanied with napkins in the cracks of your seat.
I mean most fast food is shit compared to good restaurants and home cooking. The only good places are Shake Shack, In N Out, Five Guy's, Whataburger, Chick Fil A, Raising Canes, other shit I can't think of right now
Literally name one thing wrong with getting in trouble, smoking drugs and bullying people while having a girlfriend? It’d be pretty fucking boring otherwise.
I would say you're being sarcastic but that "It’d be pretty fucking boring otherwise." leaves me whit doubts... I mean, if the only way you can have fun is by fucking up society congratulations! You're a degenerate.
Well she was pretty innocent at first, for sure. It took a couple weeks til she gave it up. Then a few months later... BAM she's a total slut, she wanted to sleep with everyone, so i ditched here.
i'm jw what you want women to do. they can't have fun and then settle down or learn from mistakes? are they supposed to just be born and go through life until they meet a soulmate and it just always works out so they only ever have one partner? that's a lot to ask
That's the problem. You trying to "help" but you really don't understand. Women take for granted "having fun" and "settling down" and even "learning from mistakes." We have none of those opportunities or experiences. Fuck even thinking about having a "soulmate" or "partner." It's extremely annoying for you to come in here saying "DURRRR I DON"T GET IT."
Nothing can be done. This is how society has been for time immemorial and how it will be well into the future. Women have all the power and wield it ruthlessly. All I want you to do is go away so we can enjoy these memes and commiserate with each other.
do you guys want women to like you and care about you or would you rather just have power over them? that's a genuine question. i came here because i thought maybe you guys wanted to be cared about and understood, but if you just wish you could dominate us and have us do whatever then there's no point and i don't care.
Ok I dont disagree with you, I think you have good intentions but you're misguided. If they're posting on incel forums they are past the point of wanting to be cared about/understood. And tbh if anybody was gonna get through to them, i do not see a woman doing it.
Just leave em be. You're just gonna get told to fuck off or get called names. It's not helpful to either party.
I do get called names etc in comments but sometimes people PM me that are very nice and they ask legitimate questions. I've had good conversations on some comment threads too, though it is not as common. I think some of them are worried they will be made fun of or criticized for engaging with me in a normal way and that's a shame
Most of the guys in this community, presented with the opportunity, would jump on the "loosest" girl who wanted to "settle down" with them. This kind of venting comes from the power structure that's tied into sex whereby the separate genders aren't going to be able to understand the other's problems from a place of personal experience.
If you see posts about rejection and isolation, those are sincere. That's where they want help, but they don't believe help is coming.
Posts like this are insincere, but designed to be some form of stress relief
Yeah, but let's not call women loose though because we don't deserve that and it's a hurtful narrative. Honestly it's not even biologically true unless maybe she's had multiple children and then still its v mean. It makes me sad for everyone involved to think of an incel reluctantly and bitterly settling down with someone they think is like used trash.
Are you lost? I'm sorry I know you think you're being polite and reasonable, but this post comes off as someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals and thinks they are interacting with people in mainstream American society. You had to search for this place; you know it's a culture that covers the range of publicly and openly misogynistic to "just a little" misogynistic and you're coming off like someone trying to lecture children
Hey look maybe everyone here prefers to be in an echo chamber with no dissenting opinions, but it seems antiproductive and like it's only going to compound everyone's depression and sadness for it to just be an uninterrupted chorus of "there's no hope and all women hate us." I did come looking for the community originally out of curiosity after meeting someone that self-identified an an incel and watching a documentary, but I stayed out of sadness at the missed connections because of these hyperbolized and inaccurate views towards women.
And which battles have you chosen? I was just going to lurk initially, but when the stars align I say something. Some stuff is too silly or wild to resist.
The most I feel is a little sad or disappointed, but I've gotten enough private messages from people that just want perspective on their situation that I think it was worth it. There's some hesitant hope here in this sub.
I think it's something along the lines of not trivialising sex and relationships as something to be tried and failed at opportunistically until you reach your best option but something more where every relationship/fuck a woman engages in is an attempt to establish permanence - basically fuck as if every time you fuck you will get pregnant
But I am really trying to tell you this is not how it is. I'm pretty gregarious and eccentric irl, so I have a pretty big pool of friends to pull from in addition to my own experiences.
A lot of times women lose their virginity with good intentions. They think they really love the person and things are going to work out. That's true in a lot of subsequent relationships too. Sometimes we reach a point where we think okay these relationships are dead end and nobody my age is ready for commitment, so maybe I should stop taking things so seriously and have fun myself too. I don't think any women except a VERY small minority somewhere plunge into dating thinking I'm going to just go batshit crazy and fuck whatever for power and favors.
Some of us do go in not taking it seriously, and have some casual sex because we are trying to find our sealegs and figure out what we want.
I realize all of this stuff is a privilege people here don't seem to have, but I think it's important to realize that we have good intentions and are not just like roast beef that are evil and manipulative and we just drain 100000 guys of their life energy, throw them away, and try to scam an incel.
Let me offer this - virtually every dude I know who's able to play the field, will play the field.
I think it's disingenuous or even a little defensive to claim that women who can play the field are so morally grounded that they refrain from the opportunity while men are just pigs (which is the myth that's been perptuated in the main stream since forever). Women will trade up while they can when given the opportunity, and as you alluded to justifying it by saying the relationship wasn't that serious or they're trying to find themselves instead of being honest and saying the new guy is better than the old one.
The scariest thing isn't the girl who has had ten one night stands/extremely casual sexual partners, the scariest thing is the serial dater who has had 10 boyfriends in five years.
I never said men are pigs, but I really don't think people trade up like that. If you're really happy in your relationship, your eyes should not be constantly peeled for an upgrade. There's something else wrong there if that's happening.
That's a pretty naive perspective (and yes, you never said men are pigs!) - the whole reason the sexual marketplace paradigm (ever player in the market is trying to maximize their upside) is actually pretty useful is because it describes actual behavior rather than what people claim they believe or how they think things should be like.
If a guy has been with a girl for a year lets say and has some sort of confidence and can pull, think about how unlikely it is that he wouldn't act on an opportunity to be with a girl that is hotter, more agreeable, more interested in sex, etc and is a known quantity such that it is clear it would not be risky to make that play (she is not too likely to trade up on the man in the future she wants to lock it in).
If you think he would just gleefully be loyal, then you watch too many romcoms.
Once again, the reason women were faithful earlier in history is because doing what they actually want, trading up opportunistically to get the best possible guy they are capable of, is not a viable strategy when sex results in pregnancy and women at that point were not capable of independent child rearing. Historically, the weight attributed to how loyal a man would be was much greater because choosing a guy who leaves you is potentially ruinous. This meant that the potential value of an average or below average guy was much higher than it is now because they are much less likely to leave you to be with someone else.
There's so many different moving parts to this conversation.
I absolutely agree that college creates a unique situation where romance and partners is competitive and attached to status etc, but that's not an accurate reflection at all of the rest of life.
It sounds like you think men are pigs? I would and do hope that for most men, they wouldn't just trade up. Why are they in a relationship at all then? Just stay single and then you can take advantage of anything and everything that comes your way, if it's just a compulsive experience dictated by barometers like hotness and interest in sex. I bet people do that too, but again I don't think that's an accurate reflection of real life.
What about at work now as an adult? Are your coworkers constantly looking to trade up ? I just don't see that happening in any circles outside of college. Maybe it is and I'm naive, but if it's that common and totally dictates the dating landscape then you would think I would run into it.
Why get into a relationship and do the emotional labor and minutiae if you're confident you could do better? It's not a good use of your time if you're unsatisfied with the specs of your current model, so I have a hard time believing that's what's going on.
50% of marriages in the states end in divorce...what is that if not a profound side effect of what I'm describing. If 50% of marriages, where actual financial resources are at stake, end in failure - the rate for dating relationships has to be 95% at least.
The key here is understanding that the belief that you can do better than what you have now is necessarily predicates a willingness to move out of a relationship.
Here's an interesting thought too, whenever a relationship fails because a partner is abusive or cheats - isn't it reasonable to conclude that if the victim in the relationship placed more weight in finding a partner very unlikely to engage in that behaviour then it could have been avoided? But because they were trying to partner with the best they possibly could they ignored doing a risk analysis and just hoped that the partner would be loyal/caring?
Isn't it even more interesting that there is an incredibly explicit call in mainstream discourse to shift the conversation from "avoid abusive partners" to "don't be abusive", such that telling someone to avoid abusive partners is villified as victim blaming? It's literally an attempt to allow this trade up strategy I'm describing to be even more viable by trying to control and shape the behaviour of players in the game through shaming.
I'm a democrat/liberal too but some of the socially progressive ideas and shit that have been sprouting forth since 2010 onwards are sketchy.
I h a t e the narratives surrounding abuse right now. You never suspect someone will hit you when you start dating. Even if you've seen them hit someone else, you think they'll never hit you. People get into those relationships for all kinds of reasons--because they're lonely or desperate or just because they never saw it coming. Abusive people hide it well or they would be totally alone and pariahs, and no one wants that. No one ever enters a relationship thinking "this person will hit me but that's fine and what I want." Saying don't be abusive puts the burden on the abuser to change, which is right because not only is it their problem and they are the asshole, it also makes more sense than trying to teach an infinite number of ever changing clues that someone might become abusive later. Some people show no signs at all.
I don't know, we are moving back into anecdotal territory here. How many people do you date that you've heard rumors about of any kind ? That's another thing that for me does not factor in to adult life.
As far as bad boys, that's subjective. What criteria are you looking at? Hypermasculine physical features or actual behavior? Men really, really, REALLY do not get play with adult women by being a tool. It might work in high school, but do you ever hear your coworkers say 'I was so mean to a girl and she totally ate it up' or 'he was really mean on our date but I kind of liked it.' If you ever do hear it, it's an exception to the rule and not good.
Doesn't it though? In the not so distant past, people tended partner with individuals who were known quantities in their community specifically so one could make an assessment of the behavioral quality of a potential partner. The fact that individuals so readily date people they know so little about, such that they can't assess the potential for abuse, shows how much of a nonfactor long term permanence is when women assess the quality of a partner. Once again because risk is low due to birth control, and of course as they begin running out of time risk becomes high and we see women use the sexual strategy that was baseline historically.
The example of a woman with AIDS was just to illustrate a point, but one can readily imagine hearing that abc person did xyz thing and conclude because of that abc person is a nonviable partner.
And by bad boy I mean a guy who behaves badly. Obviously in this context he's extremely desirable to women for reasons other than his behavior. The key here is that if his bad behavior is known, it should entirely be a deal breaker because the risk associated with partnering with him is unreasonable. Yet, currently, he would still get plenty of play
My industry example is that we own a manufacturing business, and we sometimes court fortune 500 companies for contracts making specialty parts. Sometimes they do take a risk and commission a model or a small order for what is a pittance to them. It's still a risk though and constitutes some effort, and that's like dating. You're making a small investment to see what the business is like. Are they reliable are high quality? To they mesh well with your needs and you feel you can communicate well--directly and honestly about orders that arrive damaged or spitballing a more streamline design? Then you invest more and more.
What is behaving badly? Standing me up for a date? It's over. Calling me a bitch on a date? It's over. I just quietly excuse myself, just like anyone else would do in response to wild behavior. I don't know any women in any sector or my life that would say 'well I scheduled a second date any way.' Then I would tell them that's dumb and to want more for themselves.
I think you can think of a more subtle and insidious example of bad behavior a guy could engage in that a girl would overlook. I know I've engaged in such behaviour when I was younger and not sober - and I only stood up a woman for a date once and never in my conscious memory called a woman a bitch.
Your example is actually exactly the issue here. Finding a partner has historically never been a series of exploratory courtships until you find the perfect match because having a partner meant having sex meant having a child meant no more exploring. Women had to do as much up front due diligence as possible before committing, because half committing over and over and over and over until deciding you want to commit wasn't an option. Additionally, the pressure to make the relationship succeed was extremely high because divorce was so unfavorable or just not an option. This is exacerbated by technology and globalism creating larger and constantly shifting communities.
The way dating exists now is not necessarily the way dating is most effective for all the players in the game - at the risk of sounding condescending I encourage you to more critically assess any assumption you have on what dating is and how it should be as described by the mainstream and the women around you. Toss out the norms just as a thought experiment, and try to think of the best possible way for every player in the sexual marketplace to get something rather than trying to justify what exists now.
I guess it would help me to understand what is ideal in the sexual marketplace. Are you wanting me to come up with a scenario where everyone gets sex or where everyone gets sexual relationships?
The only scenario where everyone gets either of those things is if we were all paired up without any say in anything and told until death do us all part, and that's not ideal to me. Would you enjoy that? You could very well end up with someone you're totally incompatible, and if you're having sex at all its lackluster and awkward. At that point, it's just like a warm sex toy and I think we should all want a little more than that. It's a very low bar.
As for insidious behavior, there are much more subtle bad behaviors but they go unnoticed or unappreciated for what they are because they're subtle and there are so many factors that play into interacting with another human being. You can't expect anyone to have the clarity of thought to flag and tabulate all of them, as much as I wish that were a subconscious thing.
Ideal is, grading being holistic here, 1/10s pursue, partner with, and compete with 1/10s, 2/10s pursue, partner with, and compete with 2/10s, so on and so forth.
The way it is now, and I'm estimating for illustrative purposes, 8/10 and above guys will opportunistically hold a sexual relationship with women 5/10 and above (guys are also part of the problem). These women 5/10 and above are ok with this because in the event the 8/10 will actually commit to them long term, then they score a huge win. In the event that he is unwilling, it is fine because she is not pregnant and can try again with another 8/10. This process continues until commitment starts to hold a significant amount of weight in the women's strategy and they are less interested in maximizing upside as they are in minimizing downside and managing risk, wherein the 5/10 guys are now good picks. This whole time, 7/10 guys and below have been dry or struggling hard even though they should be dating and partnering with their 7/10 opposites.
As I write this i actually realize it's slightly more complex than this - women across the scale are able to attract men several points higher than their grade as far as a non-permanent sexual relationship is concerned, and only when their strategy changes to prioritize permanence do they then pursue men in their grade.
In this whole scenario, the only reason men are ever willing to establish monogamous permanence is because it's a desired trait so it ups their chances of securing a woman in their grade, and because we have social and legal constructs that encourage it.
So instead of 1/10 women pursuing 1/10 men it's 1/10 women pursuing and failing to hold onto the 4/10 men for one to two decades before adjusting their strategy and pursuing the 1/10 men they should have been pursuing the entire time, and the 1/10 men are broken husks because of one to two decades of nothing, so on and so forth for all the grades.
National discourse needs to at the very least acknowledge that sexual liberalism is virtuous when personal freedom is the most noble of goals, but actually does not align with meaningful family (children) and community building. As far as systematic approaches to the issue that are even remotely ethical, no clue. But at the very least the pain on this sub and the pure vitriol of IncelTears needs to be understood by as many people of possible.
Disagree! This only makes sense if everyone adhered to this rating system. Nobody does that. When you meet your coworker, do you think "this is a 4"? You definitely don't. And then you hang out and go for drinks, and so on and so on. Much of life is way more organic and fluid than what your formula suggests. The numbers system (I can only assume) is for assessing looks. They are subjective to begin with, and only one facet of attraction albeit a big one. This sub, for example, seems largely repulsed by overweight people and drawn to white people as the standard of beauty. That's mostly true in real life, but not in those strict terms and not to such an extent. This scorecard thing is a barrier between the people that believe in it and real life connections, I feel.
I think the gist of what you're saying is that if women knew their worth, which is significantly lower than what their behavior would suggest, and aimed for their equals things would be fixed. Your worth and your attractiveness are not a direct correlation and if someone thinks they're worthy of their partner... they are. It's not like there's a set barcode you can scan that says no, she's a three and she's always going to be a three and she's with a permanent five.
Being funny is attractive. It's scientifically proven and universally acknowledged. Being smart, making money, being worldly, being nice, being experienced, being well-educated, being friendly.. these are all other tangible things that make someone more attractive and they're present in constantly varying degrees. There's too many things that play into attraction to distill it into these numbers.
Your worth and your attractiveness are not a direct correlation and if someone thinks they're worthy of their partner... they are.
So that's something that is nice to believe, and is something I could see myself telling a hypothetical daughter, but isn't that exactly the misconception that allows a woman to engage in a relationship where the man has no real intention of comitting yet the woman is certain somehow she can change him or win his favor?
Men who "pump and dump" and womanize are impugned by those secure in their mainstream progressive righteousness yet the women who fuel the behavior are framed as victims or someone on the wrong end of a mistake (which they may make again and again until they prioritize avoiding a man who has a reasonable likelihood of doing that).
I think a tough part in this whole discussion is having it and simultaneously thinking about people as humans with worth and lives and hopes and fears etc...so I use the gradation to simplify so i can put together the thoughts more succinctly because I'm lazy. Obviously the grading system i used is extremely imperfect but i think you can adapt the premise to the actual complexity of understanding someone's value in the sexual marketplace(s).
And yes I have definitely adjust my ratings up or down for women over time, but lets keep in mind the grade system is best understood in the context of person A is (X, Y) attractive and person B is (X, Y + 1) attractive, so since persons A and B are identical on dimension one but person B is stronger on dimension two, person B is by definition more attractive. Translated to real life: any player in the game will attempt to find the best possible partner, best possible partner being defined by some criteria. As it stands now, and some of what your saying actually embodies this, is that to an extent some women think they have the ability to change a man to fit some of her criteria better. She, because she is strong and knows herself and is independent and smart and driven, can get this man to want to commit to her even if initially she doesn't sense he wants to, or she can get him to be more respectful, or to be less selfish, etc. What she cannot change however, is how physically attractive he is, or how powerful and masculine he is, etc.
I think we are talking about two different things. Thinking you can change someone is a different issue than your rating system, and what I meant by "if you think your worthy" was if you think you're attractive enough and a good enough person for your attractive and good partner. Not if you're good enough, a bad partner will change. They won't.
"If you think you're worthy" sounds a bit delusional does it not? I think I am worthy of Adriana Lima - clearly I'm not and that is according to a sexual market place not my intrinsic worth as a human which is equal to hers and everyone else on the planet. That is to say, if I was dating Adriana Lima there would be, at least, tens of thousands of men who outclass me in virtually every respect who would actively be offering themselves to her. Being worthy of your partner
Disjoining self esteem and self worth from sexual value is an extremely powerful idea that I support and will tell any guy who's down on himself for a dry streak, but it has to do with redefining what gives someone value in the most basic general sense not in a specific arena (sex, dating, marriage).
And, I know I personally have separate thought processes when it comes to dating. Opportunism, in which I'm totally uninvested in a long term outcome and I'm just enjoying myself as much as possible until the relationship isn't providing "free" value and is more problematic, stressful, or prohibitory than it's worth. This is mostly what I do. Then there is Campaign, where there's a woman who I find incredibly attractive, feels like she's just in my league, and every non-physical characteristic feels perfect. If I am Campaigning to try and build a relationship with a woman it's an entirely different thing entirely that I haven't done enough times to talk intelligently about it but TLDR I tryhard to ensure the best possible outcome, we stay together and have kids and all the rest.
Finally, thinking you can change someone is extremely relevant to the rating system. Think about the rating system as the average of ratings across a bunch of different dimensions someone has to offer. Physical attractiveness, ability to provide, personality, etc. If a man is an 7/10 overall but 9/10 in attractiveness because their personality score is low, does it not follow that if their personality was better they would be even more attractive overall? And further, if a woman believes she can improve their personality because he will do it for her because she's worth it (like when a man cheats on his partner, and the new woman becomes his new partner under the delusion she can fundamentally change his predisposition to cheating because she, well, just can) then she can basically have her cake and eat it too. This allows men who are physically attractive or successful to get away with bad behaviour because the behaviour is either overlooked or rationalized in this way.
I'm confused here because it sounds like you practice the same kind of dating that everyone else does. Opportunistic trying things out punctuated by making a huge effort for someone you really like. As for the Adriana Lima thing, that's a great exaggeration. I meant more on the terms of excluding famous people and royalty.
What do you mean by clinical approach to sex? I've been trying to describe and characterize systems and general behaviour as I believe it actually happens not prescribe specific rules on courtship and how it should look and feel. And no, what I was describing has as much to do with eugenics or communism as downs syndrome and social security.
A big point I keep re-iterating is that women eventually end up using the sexual strategy that aligns well with the goal of having as many total partners as possible. This is to say, the ideal scenario I describe already happens to a degree via the voluntary actions of the players in the game. The big key here is that the decade and a half they don't use that strategy, the sexual marketplace is a mess and doesn't do as good a job at engendering pair bonding.
I'm reading your response, especially this one, and you are using a lot of rhetorical techniques that try and invalidate my positions by just labeling them as bad and therefore wrong - do you think you've defended the current state of the sexual marketplace for 18-35 year olds in a compelling way? Is it a necessary sacrifice for so many men to not experience sex or have a partner during the prime of their life while a minority of men have plenty? Only for them to be essentially settled for when women are 35+? Because it has definitely not always been like that so it's not some sort of fundamental component of reality
I'm trying to tell you women are not employing a strategy to simply maximize their number of partners! Its not a thing. Where are you ever hearing women say "well I have a good boyfriend but I've only slept with 12 people and I'm trying to make it to 25."
It sounds like your whole arguement is not all men are having sex and that means then system is corrupt. Not all women are having it either and a lot of people don't have access to all kinds of things that might make life more pleasant.
Maybe I'm dim but I'm trying to piece together what you really think is happening and what you really think should be happening--realistically
Saying women are striving towards as many sexual partners as they can find is not accurate and on some level I am convinced that you know that.
Arranged marriages or pairing based on predetermined value assessments also isn't a legitimate idea.
To me, saying dating is detrimental to pair bonding is like saying free will and migration are detrimental to pair bonding. Dating is a defined practice but it's a formalized system of meeting new people with romantic intentions, in it's simplest form. If you outlawed the practice of dating you would still have the same problem.
We are all constantly growing and changing, if slowly, and constantly being exposed to new and different people and that's as inevitable and incontrovertible as aging or any other reality of being alive.
I'm trying to tell you women are not employing a strategy to simply maximize their number of partners!
I agree, they are trying to find the best possible guy they can get to commit. If that is the first guy of the 25th guy is just a question of chance and how risk averse she is. If you can find a quote from one of my responses that states I think women want to have as many partners as possible as an objective, then that's on me and I apologize for confusing the discussion. If not, then that means you either don't understand my position or you are intentionally mutating it to make it easier to discredit.
It sounds like your whole arguement is not all men are having sex and that means then system is corrupt. Not all women are having it either and a lot of people don't have access to all kinds of things that might make life more pleasant.
I don't know the statistics off the top of my head but pretty sure involuntary celibates are mostly men based off survey data. The system isn't corrupt because it's not intentional as far as the aggregate behaviour of the players in the game defines the marketplace. It's the fact that in the mainstream incels are ridiculed and any sort of attempt to highlight this problem, that I suspect will only get worse, is met with derision and labels of misogyny. It's like incels are being hardcore gaslighted by the world.
Arranged marriages or pairing based on predetermined value assessments also isn't a legitimate idea.
How are arranged marriages not a legitimate idea? It's still widely practiced in many cultures? Just because it doesn't happen in the states doesn't make it wrong. And you continue to misrepresent my argument: there won't be some bureau of app that rates people and pair them. Someone's value on the sexual marketplace is defined by how much demand there is for them. If tons of people want to date/sleep with you, then you are high value, if no one does then you are low value. The key here is that value changes dramatically depending on what someone is trying to achieve with an attempted partnership and why women 35+ "settle" and why getting it right the first time was so important before widespread birth control.
To me, saying dating is detrimental to pair bonding is like saying free will and migration are detrimental to pair bonding. Dating is a defined practice but it's a formalized system of meeting new people with romantic intentions, in it's simplest form. If you outlawed the practice of dating you would still have the same problem.
I never said dating is bad, but the sexual marketplace that dating is layered on top of is messed up. A 5/10 woman does not want a 5/10 guy, she wants a 7/10 guy, and until she feels time pressure to get a guy to commit she will try and secure a 7/10 guy before relenting and getting a 5/10 guy. This is the crux of the issue and it is driven by sexual liberalism and technology. Once again, I have absolutely no desire to make anyone do anything - I just want people to understand the reality and it's implications.
We are all constantly growing and changing, if slowly, and constantly being exposed to new and different people and that's as inevitable and incontrovertible as aging or any other reality of being alive.
I meant total partnerships in the population. Like if there are two men and two women the ideal is to just have two pairs, rather than one man single and both women vying for the remaining man. I did not mean total bodycount.
The dating process ends when both parties in a partnership commit, though. If both parties are age 20 when they commit, because they both assess each other to be a solid enough option, then presumably they're done dating for the rest of their lives and that is OK because they don't need to date a bunch more people to be happy.
If they settle on a 5/10 girl it must be because there's a reason behind it. It's not random or an act of charity. Maybe the woman has more to offer than you think
They aren't settling for a 5/10. They will sleep with and have a good time with the 5/10 until it's no longer opportune, which is when she puts forth an ultimatum to commit or a 6/10 comes along. The 7/10 guy will start being willing to commit when the best he can likely get, another 7/10, is also interested in committing to him. This is a generalization, there will always be exceptions of course. But this is the basis of the imbalance in the sexual marketplace because the 5/10 girl wants the 7/10 guy to commit to her, which he has no intention of doing, and she does not want the 5/10 guy who is willing to commit to her until...
For the sake of arguement, let's say EVERYONE wants to settle down at some point. Why don't 7/10 people always end up together eventually, at some age? If it's all about looks and EVERYONE needs to settle down, why doesn't it all come out in the wash
This! It does come out in the wash! When women are 35+ and are running out of time and are less attractive than they were in their prime, to be crude. The likelihood a potential partner has to commit and provide resources (assumption here is that the whole process is meant to raise kids ultimately) and support becomes extremely important, so the 5/10 guy from before who is more than happy to commit to the 5/19 girl is a great option.
The problem is the years between 18-35 when the 5/10 guy had no sex and no relationships and basically was damaged in some way by that deprivation.
Sounds like 5/10 guys are unwilling to date down like 7s will. This all only works if you're sticking to the numbers system at all by the way, which I maintain that most people do not.
If we are sticking to everything you've laid out here, there are no incels. Only voluntarily celebrate people that are bitter about the quality they have access to.
Which is fine, I guess, but call a spade a spade and don't blame women for the fact that life isn't fair.
That's what this sounds like, unless I'm misunderstanding. You aren't mad you can't sleep with ANYONE, you're mad that you can't sleep with the women you want and it adds insult to injury that they may want to sleep with you later AND they're having fun now. You can't blame people for doing what they want if it isn't directly hurting you, and you're paddling around in murky waters when you imply that women choosing to have sex with someone else is the same as them actively choosing to hurt you.
This is a fine way to feel I suppose, but it goes around and around and becomes something else entirely--all women hate us etc etc.
Of all the things you have said here, even if ALL of only what YOU said is the gospel truth, it does not translate to women hating or even disliking men and incels being unable to get any human contact.
If we are sticking to everything you've laid out here, there are no incels. Only voluntarily celebrate people that are bitter about the quality they have access to
No, because 1, 2, and 3/10 men get nothing because 1, 2, and 3/10 women get cycled by 5/10 guys. This rectifies itself at age 35+ if the men aren't broken by then.
This isn't about fairness or morality or anything. This is just trying to be very clear that this is how things are, establish that the majority of people with a voice are ok with that, and that there are very real implications to the current status quo.
Also to be clear, I'm not mad about anything, I'm content with my sex life thus far and if anything I've shot myself in the foot more than been hurt by another.
I never said women hate men, they clearly don't. A 5/10 women will very likely not despise a 5/10 man. She simply won't consider him as a partner until it's time to bite the bullet, which once again is potentially fine - the thing is though if that guy has had little to no sex or relationships for 17 years...that starts to break a man without a doubt. Those years are extremely painful, and they exist because women, rightfully so, exercise their freedom to choose.
I never once said women are wrong, or bad, or amoral, all I am saying is the strategy they employ and the impact it has on the sexual marketplace has a really adverse effect on males with low sexual value - regardless of whether it's intentional or not
this has been some interesting discourse, but i remain unmoved from my original opinion that there are plenty of women out there willing to date a man of any number, though i will concede that they may be less common. they are absolutely out there and in no small numbers.
it's not like incels are stuck in the matrix and utterly condemned until maybe 35, they just maybe have to work a little harder. this is unfair, but so many things are. it's important to own that it's not fair but it's equally important to maintain that there is hope--because there is. all the suicide stuff that's batted around here is fatalistic at best. in addition, if you've got an otherwise fulfilling life with platonic connections that are genuine, i don't understand why no one here wants to live until 35--even if there really was no hope until then, and i think there is.
I agree with everything you said here very generally except
plenty of women out there willing to date a man of any number
Neither of us have the exact data to verify or falsify this but from my experience, women will always go for their reach and hold out on settling while they can.
But it makes more statistical sense that I'm right. There's an exception to every rule out there, so mathematically and anecdotally from my life as a woman surrounded by women... let's all agree that I'm right 😤
Illusion of what? On its face, sure it looks like a writhing pit of hate. But upon closer inspection, it's more like an open wound and there are a lot of people that engage with me in a very polite and nice way privately.
There's literally no point in you being here. All you're saying is "oh yeah I know we women get to have fun and sleep around and find ourselves. I know you guys don't but hey we're not so bad." Do you think anyone here wants to hear that shit? Or your humble bragging and patting yourself on the back for talking to us?
It's not really supposed to be humble bragging. It's just going to be harder for you if you're oozing hate, and I just thought I'd point out that maybe the hate is a little misplaced.
Because women's labias get bigger from sex? Or something? Is it based on how many men they have sex with, or the number of times they have sex? What's the logic here?
No they don't. Anything smaller than a newborn baby isn't going to have any real long-term effect, and even then it's not going to affect the labia in any significant way.
i still don't understand how anyone actually believes that the vulva's appearance can change due to multiple sexual partners. if a woman has long labia chances are she's always had long labia
I was planning on posting videos of myself lifting 315, 405lbs. in a mask to help dispel the stereotype that all incels are fat basement dwelling nerds.
Truth is, some of us just don't have the face for women. And fuck waiting until they're ready to "settle down".
That's a pretty naive perspective (and yes, you never said men are pigs!) - the whole reason the sexual marketplace paradigm (ever player in the market is trying to maximize their upside) is actually pretty useful is because it describes actual behavior rather than what people claim they believe or how they think things should be like.
If a guy has been with a girl for a year lets say and has some sort of confidence and can pull, think about how unlikely it is that he wouldn't act on an opportunity to be with a girl that is hotter, more agreeable, more interested in sex, etc and is a known quantity such that it is clear it would not be risky to make that play (she is not too likely to trade up on the man in the future she wants to lock it in).
If you think he would just gleefully be loyal, then you watch too many romcoms.
Once again, the reason women were faithful earlier in history is because doing what they actually want, trading up opportunistically to get the best possible guy they are capable of, is not a viable strategy when sex results in pregnancy and women at that point were not capable of independent child rearing. Historically, the weight attributed to how loyal a man would be was much greater because choosing a guy who leaves you is potentially ruinous. This meant that the potential value of an average or below average guy was much higher than it is now because they are much less likely to leave you to be with someone else.
But it makes more statistical sense that I'm right. There's an exception to every rule out there, so mathematically and anecdotally from my life as a woman surrounded by women... let's all agree that I'm right 😤
124 comments
1 DavidJewenstein 2018-05-19
lmao
1 Former-Incel-User 2018-05-19
Arby's is fucking garbage
1 bobsbigbouy 2018-05-19
for you
1 Former-Incel-User 2018-05-19
Was eating curly fries a part of your plan?
1 bobsbigbouy 2018-05-19
y-y-y-ou too
1 Kar98kSnipe 2018-05-19
I used to think that too until those $1 sliders popped up. My Jew mentality couldn’t resist and I’ve been going hard on those Buffalo chicken sliders since the $1 Taco Bell stackers went out
1 Disappointedshorty 2018-05-19
Jalepeno sliders are the bomb.
1 Kar98kSnipe 2018-05-19
I had that too but I didn’t like it as much as the buffalo. Still spicy tho
1 BasedRubby 2018-05-19
real jew mentality is cooking yourself
1 existentialcel 2018-05-19
You ever just take a perfectly fine sandwich and swamp it in mayonnaise for no reason? It's generally a problem with fast food in general but it's especially prevalent in Arbys. The cheese tastes like garbage and all of their little sides seem like frozen processed food they microwaved before serving. I have never once been to an Arbys and left feeling satisfied. No extra layer of shitty plastic beef will make up for the flavor, overpriced sandwiches, and unclean tables accompanied with napkins in the cracks of your seat.
1 Former-Incel-User 2018-05-19
I mean most fast food is shit compared to good restaurants and home cooking. The only good places are Shake Shack, In N Out, Five Guy's, Whataburger, Chick Fil A, Raising Canes, other shit I can't think of right now
1 Administrative_Camel 2018-05-19
I think this whole incel and roastie business is a stealth Arby's marketing campaign
I always get hungry for some Arby's every time I visit this subreddit.
1 CaligulaWasRight 2018-05-19
high iq post
1 NatSocCel 2018-05-19
All women are used up whores.
1 spacebound232 2018-05-19
There you go! That's exactly how you get laid!
1 FireAlarm911 2018-05-19
It works for abusive Chads and thugs
1 spacebound232 2018-05-19
Not really.
1 PTsoldierPT 2018-05-19
I have seen it work, those guys who only get in trouble, smoke drugs and bully people, how come those guys have girlfriends?
1 TAYbayybay 2018-05-19
They get girlfriends who are equally into the same stuff
1 PTsoldierPT 2018-05-19
Like 99% of them?
1 NatSocCel 2018-05-19
Nope. Even the most religious girl will become a whore for Chad.
1 The_Real_Cannaman 2018-05-19
I've seen it, no one is safe
1 FuckElonMusk69 2018-05-19
Literally name one thing wrong with getting in trouble, smoking drugs and bullying people while having a girlfriend? It’d be pretty fucking boring otherwise.
1 PTsoldierPT 2018-05-19
I would say you're being sarcastic but that "It’d be pretty fucking boring otherwise." leaves me whit doubts... I mean, if the only way you can have fun is by fucking up society congratulations! You're a degenerate.
1 Hoeasss 2018-05-19
Your retarded if you think Chad talks about how amazing feminism is with his friends jfl
1 ngram11 2018-05-19
It really doesn’t
1 FireAlarm911 2018-05-19
Tell that to jeremy meeks
1 ngram11 2018-05-19
Am I supposed to know who that is?
1 GuyWithPineapple 2018-05-19
yes bitch lol
1 escapetheinceldom 2018-05-19
He's a walking blackpill.
1 NatSocCel 2018-05-19
Well I actually have a theory that if you're a bad person to women your chances at getting laid will increase.
Being an nice guy as an ugly person gives off that beta look, and femoids will treat you as an orbiter to seek validation from.
1 virgin_nerds 2018-05-19
I deflowered like 3 girls in high school. The sweetest one was this tight blonde sophmore during my senior year. Dude life can be so sweet.
1 NatSocCel 2018-05-19
Proves that teen girls are sexual beings for Chad, not innocent little butterflies.
1 virgin_nerds 2018-05-19
Well she was pretty innocent at first, for sure. It took a couple weeks til she gave it up. Then a few months later... BAM she's a total slut, she wanted to sleep with everyone, so i ditched here.
1 cannuckgamer 2018-05-19
You forgot the obligatory "tee hee hee" at the end there.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
i'm jw what you want women to do. they can't have fun and then settle down or learn from mistakes? are they supposed to just be born and go through life until they meet a soulmate and it just always works out so they only ever have one partner? that's a lot to ask
1 Fernandonut 2018-05-19
oh good this bitch again
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
have you considered: being civil?
1 Fernandonut 2018-05-19
That's the problem. You trying to "help" but you really don't understand. Women take for granted "having fun" and "settling down" and even "learning from mistakes." We have none of those opportunities or experiences. Fuck even thinking about having a "soulmate" or "partner." It's extremely annoying for you to come in here saying "DURRRR I DON"T GET IT."
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
i realize the privilege, but what do you want us to DO about it? how do you want us to go through life--other than doing the best we can?
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Not much you can do about it, to be honest with you. We'll hate you no matter what. :)
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I mean go off I guess but there is another way to be
1 Fernandonut 2018-05-19
Nothing can be done. This is how society has been for time immemorial and how it will be well into the future. Women have all the power and wield it ruthlessly. All I want you to do is go away so we can enjoy these memes and commiserate with each other.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
do you guys want women to like you and care about you or would you rather just have power over them? that's a genuine question. i came here because i thought maybe you guys wanted to be cared about and understood, but if you just wish you could dominate us and have us do whatever then there's no point and i don't care.
1 darklordcalicorn 2018-05-19
Ok I dont disagree with you, I think you have good intentions but you're misguided. If they're posting on incel forums they are past the point of wanting to be cared about/understood. And tbh if anybody was gonna get through to them, i do not see a woman doing it.
Just leave em be. You're just gonna get told to fuck off or get called names. It's not helpful to either party.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I do get called names etc in comments but sometimes people PM me that are very nice and they ask legitimate questions. I've had good conversations on some comment threads too, though it is not as common. I think some of them are worried they will be made fun of or criticized for engaging with me in a normal way and that's a shame
1 renro 2018-05-19
Let's take out the razor here.
Most of the guys in this community, presented with the opportunity, would jump on the "loosest" girl who wanted to "settle down" with them. This kind of venting comes from the power structure that's tied into sex whereby the separate genders aren't going to be able to understand the other's problems from a place of personal experience.
If you see posts about rejection and isolation, those are sincere. That's where they want help, but they don't believe help is coming.
Posts like this are insincere, but designed to be some form of stress relief
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Yeah, but let's not call women loose though because we don't deserve that and it's a hurtful narrative. Honestly it's not even biologically true unless maybe she's had multiple children and then still its v mean. It makes me sad for everyone involved to think of an incel reluctantly and bitterly settling down with someone they think is like used trash.
1 tellmewhatididwrong0 2018-05-19
Just leave ffs
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Sure you don't want me to tell you what you did wrong ?
1 tellmewhatididwrong0 2018-05-19
You know how to read usernames, a great feat for a femoid! Now GTFO
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
It was a joke! I'm sorry. I'm trying to be lighthearted
1 tellmewhatididwrong0 2018-05-19
This is not a place for femoids. Go back to Facebook
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Look embrace joy!! I can even mail you a plant cutting
1 renro 2018-05-19
Are you lost? I'm sorry I know you think you're being polite and reasonable, but this post comes off as someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals and thinks they are interacting with people in mainstream American society. You had to search for this place; you know it's a culture that covers the range of publicly and openly misogynistic to "just a little" misogynistic and you're coming off like someone trying to lecture children
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Hey look maybe everyone here prefers to be in an echo chamber with no dissenting opinions, but it seems antiproductive and like it's only going to compound everyone's depression and sadness for it to just be an uninterrupted chorus of "there's no hope and all women hate us." I did come looking for the community originally out of curiosity after meeting someone that self-identified an an incel and watching a documentary, but I stayed out of sadness at the missed connections because of these hyperbolized and inaccurate views towards women.
1 renro 2018-05-19
I'm here for similar reasons, but pick your battles, you know?
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
And which battles have you chosen? I was just going to lurk initially, but when the stars align I say something. Some stuff is too silly or wild to resist.
The most I feel is a little sad or disappointed, but I've gotten enough private messages from people that just want perspective on their situation that I think it was worth it. There's some hesitant hope here in this sub.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
I think it's something along the lines of not trivialising sex and relationships as something to be tried and failed at opportunistically until you reach your best option but something more where every relationship/fuck a woman engages in is an attempt to establish permanence - basically fuck as if every time you fuck you will get pregnant
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
But I am really trying to tell you this is not how it is. I'm pretty gregarious and eccentric irl, so I have a pretty big pool of friends to pull from in addition to my own experiences.
A lot of times women lose their virginity with good intentions. They think they really love the person and things are going to work out. That's true in a lot of subsequent relationships too. Sometimes we reach a point where we think okay these relationships are dead end and nobody my age is ready for commitment, so maybe I should stop taking things so seriously and have fun myself too. I don't think any women except a VERY small minority somewhere plunge into dating thinking I'm going to just go batshit crazy and fuck whatever for power and favors.
Some of us do go in not taking it seriously, and have some casual sex because we are trying to find our sealegs and figure out what we want.
I realize all of this stuff is a privilege people here don't seem to have, but I think it's important to realize that we have good intentions and are not just like roast beef that are evil and manipulative and we just drain 100000 guys of their life energy, throw them away, and try to scam an incel.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Let me offer this - virtually every dude I know who's able to play the field, will play the field.
I think it's disingenuous or even a little defensive to claim that women who can play the field are so morally grounded that they refrain from the opportunity while men are just pigs (which is the myth that's been perptuated in the main stream since forever). Women will trade up while they can when given the opportunity, and as you alluded to justifying it by saying the relationship wasn't that serious or they're trying to find themselves instead of being honest and saying the new guy is better than the old one.
The scariest thing isn't the girl who has had ten one night stands/extremely casual sexual partners, the scariest thing is the serial dater who has had 10 boyfriends in five years.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I never said men are pigs, but I really don't think people trade up like that. If you're really happy in your relationship, your eyes should not be constantly peeled for an upgrade. There's something else wrong there if that's happening.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
That's a pretty naive perspective (and yes, you never said men are pigs!) - the whole reason the sexual marketplace paradigm (ever player in the market is trying to maximize their upside) is actually pretty useful is because it describes actual behavior rather than what people claim they believe or how they think things should be like.
If a guy has been with a girl for a year lets say and has some sort of confidence and can pull, think about how unlikely it is that he wouldn't act on an opportunity to be with a girl that is hotter, more agreeable, more interested in sex, etc and is a known quantity such that it is clear it would not be risky to make that play (she is not too likely to trade up on the man in the future she wants to lock it in).
If you think he would just gleefully be loyal, then you watch too many romcoms.
Once again, the reason women were faithful earlier in history is because doing what they actually want, trading up opportunistically to get the best possible guy they are capable of, is not a viable strategy when sex results in pregnancy and women at that point were not capable of independent child rearing. Historically, the weight attributed to how loyal a man would be was much greater because choosing a guy who leaves you is potentially ruinous. This meant that the potential value of an average or below average guy was much higher than it is now because they are much less likely to leave you to be with someone else.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
There's so many different moving parts to this conversation.
I absolutely agree that college creates a unique situation where romance and partners is competitive and attached to status etc, but that's not an accurate reflection at all of the rest of life.
It sounds like you think men are pigs? I would and do hope that for most men, they wouldn't just trade up. Why are they in a relationship at all then? Just stay single and then you can take advantage of anything and everything that comes your way, if it's just a compulsive experience dictated by barometers like hotness and interest in sex. I bet people do that too, but again I don't think that's an accurate reflection of real life.
What about at work now as an adult? Are your coworkers constantly looking to trade up ? I just don't see that happening in any circles outside of college. Maybe it is and I'm naive, but if it's that common and totally dictates the dating landscape then you would think I would run into it.
Why get into a relationship and do the emotional labor and minutiae if you're confident you could do better? It's not a good use of your time if you're unsatisfied with the specs of your current model, so I have a hard time believing that's what's going on.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
50% of marriages in the states end in divorce...what is that if not a profound side effect of what I'm describing. If 50% of marriages, where actual financial resources are at stake, end in failure - the rate for dating relationships has to be 95% at least.
The key here is understanding that the belief that you can do better than what you have now is necessarily predicates a willingness to move out of a relationship.
Here's an interesting thought too, whenever a relationship fails because a partner is abusive or cheats - isn't it reasonable to conclude that if the victim in the relationship placed more weight in finding a partner very unlikely to engage in that behaviour then it could have been avoided? But because they were trying to partner with the best they possibly could they ignored doing a risk analysis and just hoped that the partner would be loyal/caring?
Isn't it even more interesting that there is an incredibly explicit call in mainstream discourse to shift the conversation from "avoid abusive partners" to "don't be abusive", such that telling someone to avoid abusive partners is villified as victim blaming? It's literally an attempt to allow this trade up strategy I'm describing to be even more viable by trying to control and shape the behaviour of players in the game through shaming.
I'm a democrat/liberal too but some of the socially progressive ideas and shit that have been sprouting forth since 2010 onwards are sketchy.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I h a t e the narratives surrounding abuse right now. You never suspect someone will hit you when you start dating. Even if you've seen them hit someone else, you think they'll never hit you. People get into those relationships for all kinds of reasons--because they're lonely or desperate or just because they never saw it coming. Abusive people hide it well or they would be totally alone and pariahs, and no one wants that. No one ever enters a relationship thinking "this person will hit me but that's fine and what I want." Saying don't be abusive puts the burden on the abuser to change, which is right because not only is it their problem and they are the asshole, it also makes more sense than trying to teach an infinite number of ever changing clues that someone might become abusive later. Some people show no signs at all.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Fair, ignore my thought experiment on abusive relationships then. What do you think about the arguments made prior to that in my last response
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I don't know, we are moving back into anecdotal territory here. How many people do you date that you've heard rumors about of any kind ? That's another thing that for me does not factor in to adult life.
As far as bad boys, that's subjective. What criteria are you looking at? Hypermasculine physical features or actual behavior? Men really, really, REALLY do not get play with adult women by being a tool. It might work in high school, but do you ever hear your coworkers say 'I was so mean to a girl and she totally ate it up' or 'he was really mean on our date but I kind of liked it.' If you ever do hear it, it's an exception to the rule and not good.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Doesn't it though? In the not so distant past, people tended partner with individuals who were known quantities in their community specifically so one could make an assessment of the behavioral quality of a potential partner. The fact that individuals so readily date people they know so little about, such that they can't assess the potential for abuse, shows how much of a nonfactor long term permanence is when women assess the quality of a partner. Once again because risk is low due to birth control, and of course as they begin running out of time risk becomes high and we see women use the sexual strategy that was baseline historically.
The example of a woman with AIDS was just to illustrate a point, but one can readily imagine hearing that abc person did xyz thing and conclude because of that abc person is a nonviable partner.
And by bad boy I mean a guy who behaves badly. Obviously in this context he's extremely desirable to women for reasons other than his behavior. The key here is that if his bad behavior is known, it should entirely be a deal breaker because the risk associated with partnering with him is unreasonable. Yet, currently, he would still get plenty of play
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
My industry example is that we own a manufacturing business, and we sometimes court fortune 500 companies for contracts making specialty parts. Sometimes they do take a risk and commission a model or a small order for what is a pittance to them. It's still a risk though and constitutes some effort, and that's like dating. You're making a small investment to see what the business is like. Are they reliable are high quality? To they mesh well with your needs and you feel you can communicate well--directly and honestly about orders that arrive damaged or spitballing a more streamline design? Then you invest more and more.
What is behaving badly? Standing me up for a date? It's over. Calling me a bitch on a date? It's over. I just quietly excuse myself, just like anyone else would do in response to wild behavior. I don't know any women in any sector or my life that would say 'well I scheduled a second date any way.' Then I would tell them that's dumb and to want more for themselves.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
I think you can think of a more subtle and insidious example of bad behavior a guy could engage in that a girl would overlook. I know I've engaged in such behaviour when I was younger and not sober - and I only stood up a woman for a date once and never in my conscious memory called a woman a bitch.
Your example is actually exactly the issue here. Finding a partner has historically never been a series of exploratory courtships until you find the perfect match because having a partner meant having sex meant having a child meant no more exploring. Women had to do as much up front due diligence as possible before committing, because half committing over and over and over and over until deciding you want to commit wasn't an option. Additionally, the pressure to make the relationship succeed was extremely high because divorce was so unfavorable or just not an option. This is exacerbated by technology and globalism creating larger and constantly shifting communities.
The way dating exists now is not necessarily the way dating is most effective for all the players in the game - at the risk of sounding condescending I encourage you to more critically assess any assumption you have on what dating is and how it should be as described by the mainstream and the women around you. Toss out the norms just as a thought experiment, and try to think of the best possible way for every player in the sexual marketplace to get something rather than trying to justify what exists now.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I guess it would help me to understand what is ideal in the sexual marketplace. Are you wanting me to come up with a scenario where everyone gets sex or where everyone gets sexual relationships?
The only scenario where everyone gets either of those things is if we were all paired up without any say in anything and told until death do us all part, and that's not ideal to me. Would you enjoy that? You could very well end up with someone you're totally incompatible, and if you're having sex at all its lackluster and awkward. At that point, it's just like a warm sex toy and I think we should all want a little more than that. It's a very low bar.
As for insidious behavior, there are much more subtle bad behaviors but they go unnoticed or unappreciated for what they are because they're subtle and there are so many factors that play into interacting with another human being. You can't expect anyone to have the clarity of thought to flag and tabulate all of them, as much as I wish that were a subconscious thing.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Ideal is, grading being holistic here, 1/10s pursue, partner with, and compete with 1/10s, 2/10s pursue, partner with, and compete with 2/10s, so on and so forth.
The way it is now, and I'm estimating for illustrative purposes, 8/10 and above guys will opportunistically hold a sexual relationship with women 5/10 and above (guys are also part of the problem). These women 5/10 and above are ok with this because in the event the 8/10 will actually commit to them long term, then they score a huge win. In the event that he is unwilling, it is fine because she is not pregnant and can try again with another 8/10. This process continues until commitment starts to hold a significant amount of weight in the women's strategy and they are less interested in maximizing upside as they are in minimizing downside and managing risk, wherein the 5/10 guys are now good picks. This whole time, 7/10 guys and below have been dry or struggling hard even though they should be dating and partnering with their 7/10 opposites.
As I write this i actually realize it's slightly more complex than this - women across the scale are able to attract men several points higher than their grade as far as a non-permanent sexual relationship is concerned, and only when their strategy changes to prioritize permanence do they then pursue men in their grade.
In this whole scenario, the only reason men are ever willing to establish monogamous permanence is because it's a desired trait so it ups their chances of securing a woman in their grade, and because we have social and legal constructs that encourage it.
So instead of 1/10 women pursuing 1/10 men it's 1/10 women pursuing and failing to hold onto the 4/10 men for one to two decades before adjusting their strategy and pursuing the 1/10 men they should have been pursuing the entire time, and the 1/10 men are broken husks because of one to two decades of nothing, so on and so forth for all the grades.
National discourse needs to at the very least acknowledge that sexual liberalism is virtuous when personal freedom is the most noble of goals, but actually does not align with meaningful family (children) and community building. As far as systematic approaches to the issue that are even remotely ethical, no clue. But at the very least the pain on this sub and the pure vitriol of IncelTears needs to be understood by as many people of possible.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Disagree! This only makes sense if everyone adhered to this rating system. Nobody does that. When you meet your coworker, do you think "this is a 4"? You definitely don't. And then you hang out and go for drinks, and so on and so on. Much of life is way more organic and fluid than what your formula suggests. The numbers system (I can only assume) is for assessing looks. They are subjective to begin with, and only one facet of attraction albeit a big one. This sub, for example, seems largely repulsed by overweight people and drawn to white people as the standard of beauty. That's mostly true in real life, but not in those strict terms and not to such an extent. This scorecard thing is a barrier between the people that believe in it and real life connections, I feel.
I think the gist of what you're saying is that if women knew their worth, which is significantly lower than what their behavior would suggest, and aimed for their equals things would be fixed. Your worth and your attractiveness are not a direct correlation and if someone thinks they're worthy of their partner... they are. It's not like there's a set barcode you can scan that says no, she's a three and she's always going to be a three and she's with a permanent five.
Being funny is attractive. It's scientifically proven and universally acknowledged. Being smart, making money, being worldly, being nice, being experienced, being well-educated, being friendly.. these are all other tangible things that make someone more attractive and they're present in constantly varying degrees. There's too many things that play into attraction to distill it into these numbers.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
So that's something that is nice to believe, and is something I could see myself telling a hypothetical daughter, but isn't that exactly the misconception that allows a woman to engage in a relationship where the man has no real intention of comitting yet the woman is certain somehow she can change him or win his favor?
Men who "pump and dump" and womanize are impugned by those secure in their mainstream progressive righteousness yet the women who fuel the behavior are framed as victims or someone on the wrong end of a mistake (which they may make again and again until they prioritize avoiding a man who has a reasonable likelihood of doing that).
I think a tough part in this whole discussion is having it and simultaneously thinking about people as humans with worth and lives and hopes and fears etc...so I use the gradation to simplify so i can put together the thoughts more succinctly because I'm lazy. Obviously the grading system i used is extremely imperfect but i think you can adapt the premise to the actual complexity of understanding someone's value in the sexual marketplace(s).
And yes I have definitely adjust my ratings up or down for women over time, but lets keep in mind the grade system is best understood in the context of person A is (X, Y) attractive and person B is (X, Y + 1) attractive, so since persons A and B are identical on dimension one but person B is stronger on dimension two, person B is by definition more attractive. Translated to real life: any player in the game will attempt to find the best possible partner, best possible partner being defined by some criteria. As it stands now, and some of what your saying actually embodies this, is that to an extent some women think they have the ability to change a man to fit some of her criteria better. She, because she is strong and knows herself and is independent and smart and driven, can get this man to want to commit to her even if initially she doesn't sense he wants to, or she can get him to be more respectful, or to be less selfish, etc. What she cannot change however, is how physically attractive he is, or how powerful and masculine he is, etc.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I think we are talking about two different things. Thinking you can change someone is a different issue than your rating system, and what I meant by "if you think your worthy" was if you think you're attractive enough and a good enough person for your attractive and good partner. Not if you're good enough, a bad partner will change. They won't.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
"If you think you're worthy" sounds a bit delusional does it not? I think I am worthy of Adriana Lima - clearly I'm not and that is according to a sexual market place not my intrinsic worth as a human which is equal to hers and everyone else on the planet. That is to say, if I was dating Adriana Lima there would be, at least, tens of thousands of men who outclass me in virtually every respect who would actively be offering themselves to her. Being worthy of your partner
Disjoining self esteem and self worth from sexual value is an extremely powerful idea that I support and will tell any guy who's down on himself for a dry streak, but it has to do with redefining what gives someone value in the most basic general sense not in a specific arena (sex, dating, marriage).
And, I know I personally have separate thought processes when it comes to dating. Opportunism, in which I'm totally uninvested in a long term outcome and I'm just enjoying myself as much as possible until the relationship isn't providing "free" value and is more problematic, stressful, or prohibitory than it's worth. This is mostly what I do. Then there is Campaign, where there's a woman who I find incredibly attractive, feels like she's just in my league, and every non-physical characteristic feels perfect. If I am Campaigning to try and build a relationship with a woman it's an entirely different thing entirely that I haven't done enough times to talk intelligently about it but TLDR I tryhard to ensure the best possible outcome, we stay together and have kids and all the rest.
Finally, thinking you can change someone is extremely relevant to the rating system. Think about the rating system as the average of ratings across a bunch of different dimensions someone has to offer. Physical attractiveness, ability to provide, personality, etc. If a man is an 7/10 overall but 9/10 in attractiveness because their personality score is low, does it not follow that if their personality was better they would be even more attractive overall? And further, if a woman believes she can improve their personality because he will do it for her because she's worth it (like when a man cheats on his partner, and the new woman becomes his new partner under the delusion she can fundamentally change his predisposition to cheating because she, well, just can) then she can basically have her cake and eat it too. This allows men who are physically attractive or successful to get away with bad behaviour because the behaviour is either overlooked or rationalized in this way.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I'm confused here because it sounds like you practice the same kind of dating that everyone else does. Opportunistic trying things out punctuated by making a huge effort for someone you really like. As for the Adriana Lima thing, that's a great exaggeration. I meant more on the terms of excluding famous people and royalty.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
What do you mean by clinical approach to sex? I've been trying to describe and characterize systems and general behaviour as I believe it actually happens not prescribe specific rules on courtship and how it should look and feel. And no, what I was describing has as much to do with eugenics or communism as downs syndrome and social security.
A big point I keep re-iterating is that women eventually end up using the sexual strategy that aligns well with the goal of having as many total partners as possible. This is to say, the ideal scenario I describe already happens to a degree via the voluntary actions of the players in the game. The big key here is that the decade and a half they don't use that strategy, the sexual marketplace is a mess and doesn't do as good a job at engendering pair bonding.
I'm reading your response, especially this one, and you are using a lot of rhetorical techniques that try and invalidate my positions by just labeling them as bad and therefore wrong - do you think you've defended the current state of the sexual marketplace for 18-35 year olds in a compelling way? Is it a necessary sacrifice for so many men to not experience sex or have a partner during the prime of their life while a minority of men have plenty? Only for them to be essentially settled for when women are 35+? Because it has definitely not always been like that so it's not some sort of fundamental component of reality
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I'm trying to tell you women are not employing a strategy to simply maximize their number of partners! Its not a thing. Where are you ever hearing women say "well I have a good boyfriend but I've only slept with 12 people and I'm trying to make it to 25."
It sounds like your whole arguement is not all men are having sex and that means then system is corrupt. Not all women are having it either and a lot of people don't have access to all kinds of things that might make life more pleasant.
Maybe I'm dim but I'm trying to piece together what you really think is happening and what you really think should be happening--realistically
Saying women are striving towards as many sexual partners as they can find is not accurate and on some level I am convinced that you know that.
Arranged marriages or pairing based on predetermined value assessments also isn't a legitimate idea.
To me, saying dating is detrimental to pair bonding is like saying free will and migration are detrimental to pair bonding. Dating is a defined practice but it's a formalized system of meeting new people with romantic intentions, in it's simplest form. If you outlawed the practice of dating you would still have the same problem.
We are all constantly growing and changing, if slowly, and constantly being exposed to new and different people and that's as inevitable and incontrovertible as aging or any other reality of being alive.
1 CommonMisspellingBot 2018-05-19
Hey, alphonsethegreat, just a quick heads-up:
arguement is actually spelled argument. You can remember it by no e after the u.
Have a nice day!
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Great bot!!
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
I agree, they are trying to find the best possible guy they can get to commit. If that is the first guy of the 25th guy is just a question of chance and how risk averse she is. If you can find a quote from one of my responses that states I think women want to have as many partners as possible as an objective, then that's on me and I apologize for confusing the discussion. If not, then that means you either don't understand my position or you are intentionally mutating it to make it easier to discredit.
I don't know the statistics off the top of my head but pretty sure involuntary celibates are mostly men based off survey data. The system isn't corrupt because it's not intentional as far as the aggregate behaviour of the players in the game defines the marketplace. It's the fact that in the mainstream incels are ridiculed and any sort of attempt to highlight this problem, that I suspect will only get worse, is met with derision and labels of misogyny. It's like incels are being hardcore gaslighted by the world.
How are arranged marriages not a legitimate idea? It's still widely practiced in many cultures? Just because it doesn't happen in the states doesn't make it wrong. And you continue to misrepresent my argument: there won't be some bureau of app that rates people and pair them. Someone's value on the sexual marketplace is defined by how much demand there is for them. If tons of people want to date/sleep with you, then you are high value, if no one does then you are low value. The key here is that value changes dramatically depending on what someone is trying to achieve with an attempted partnership and why women 35+ "settle" and why getting it right the first time was so important before widespread birth control.
I never said dating is bad, but the sexual marketplace that dating is layered on top of is messed up. A 5/10 woman does not want a 5/10 guy, she wants a 7/10 guy, and until she feels time pressure to get a guy to commit she will try and secure a 7/10 guy before relenting and getting a 5/10 guy. This is the crux of the issue and it is driven by sexual liberalism and technology. Once again, I have absolutely no desire to make anyone do anything - I just want people to understand the reality and it's implications.
Unsure what point this is addressing.
1 CommonMisspellingBot 2018-05-19
Hey, youjustabattlerapper, just a quick heads-up:
arguement is actually spelled argument. You can remember it by no e after the u.
Have a nice day!
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Delete
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Second paragraph of your last comment about a strategy that aligns well with having as many partners as possible.
Arranged marriages aren't legitimate because is not gonna happen on a grand scale, regardless of where it's being practiced now.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
I meant total partnerships in the population. Like if there are two men and two women the ideal is to just have two pairs, rather than one man single and both women vying for the remaining man. I did not mean total bodycount.
And fair, regarding arranged marriages.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
The dating process ends when both parties in a partnership commit, though. If both parties are age 20 when they commit, because they both assess each other to be a solid enough option, then presumably they're done dating for the rest of their lives and that is OK because they don't need to date a bunch more people to be happy.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Now we're getting somewhere.
They aren't settling for a 5/10. They will sleep with and have a good time with the 5/10 until it's no longer opportune, which is when she puts forth an ultimatum to commit or a 6/10 comes along. The 7/10 guy will start being willing to commit when the best he can likely get, another 7/10, is also interested in committing to him. This is a generalization, there will always be exceptions of course. But this is the basis of the imbalance in the sexual marketplace because the 5/10 girl wants the 7/10 guy to commit to her, which he has no intention of doing, and she does not want the 5/10 guy who is willing to commit to her until...
This! It does come out in the wash! When women are 35+ and are running out of time and are less attractive than they were in their prime, to be crude. The likelihood a potential partner has to commit and provide resources (assumption here is that the whole process is meant to raise kids ultimately) and support becomes extremely important, so the 5/10 guy from before who is more than happy to commit to the 5/19 girl is a great option.
The problem is the years between 18-35 when the 5/10 guy had no sex and no relationships and basically was damaged in some way by that deprivation.
1 CommonMisspellingBot 2018-05-19
Hey, youjustabattlerapper, just a quick heads-up:
arguement is actually spelled argument. You can remember it by no e after the u.
Have a nice day!
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Sounds like 5/10 guys are unwilling to date down like 7s will. This all only works if you're sticking to the numbers system at all by the way, which I maintain that most people do not.
If we are sticking to everything you've laid out here, there are no incels. Only voluntarily celebrate people that are bitter about the quality they have access to.
Which is fine, I guess, but call a spade a spade and don't blame women for the fact that life isn't fair.
That's what this sounds like, unless I'm misunderstanding. You aren't mad you can't sleep with ANYONE, you're mad that you can't sleep with the women you want and it adds insult to injury that they may want to sleep with you later AND they're having fun now. You can't blame people for doing what they want if it isn't directly hurting you, and you're paddling around in murky waters when you imply that women choosing to have sex with someone else is the same as them actively choosing to hurt you.
This is a fine way to feel I suppose, but it goes around and around and becomes something else entirely--all women hate us etc etc.
Of all the things you have said here, even if ALL of only what YOU said is the gospel truth, it does not translate to women hating or even disliking men and incels being unable to get any human contact.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
No, because 1, 2, and 3/10 men get nothing because 1, 2, and 3/10 women get cycled by 5/10 guys. This rectifies itself at age 35+ if the men aren't broken by then.
This isn't about fairness or morality or anything. This is just trying to be very clear that this is how things are, establish that the majority of people with a voice are ok with that, and that there are very real implications to the current status quo.
Also to be clear, I'm not mad about anything, I'm content with my sex life thus far and if anything I've shot myself in the foot more than been hurt by another.
I never said women hate men, they clearly don't. A 5/10 women will very likely not despise a 5/10 man. She simply won't consider him as a partner until it's time to bite the bullet, which once again is potentially fine - the thing is though if that guy has had little to no sex or relationships for 17 years...that starts to break a man without a doubt. Those years are extremely painful, and they exist because women, rightfully so, exercise their freedom to choose.
I never once said women are wrong, or bad, or amoral, all I am saying is the strategy they employ and the impact it has on the sexual marketplace has a really adverse effect on males with low sexual value - regardless of whether it's intentional or not
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
this has been some interesting discourse, but i remain unmoved from my original opinion that there are plenty of women out there willing to date a man of any number, though i will concede that they may be less common. they are absolutely out there and in no small numbers.
it's not like incels are stuck in the matrix and utterly condemned until maybe 35, they just maybe have to work a little harder. this is unfair, but so many things are. it's important to own that it's not fair but it's equally important to maintain that there is hope--because there is. all the suicide stuff that's batted around here is fatalistic at best. in addition, if you've got an otherwise fulfilling life with platonic connections that are genuine, i don't understand why no one here wants to live until 35--even if there really was no hope until then, and i think there is.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
I agree with everything you said here very generally except
Neither of us have the exact data to verify or falsify this but from my experience, women will always go for their reach and hold out on settling while they can.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
But it makes more statistical sense that I'm right. There's an exception to every rule out there, so mathematically and anecdotally from my life as a woman surrounded by women... let's all agree that I'm right 😤
This was fun
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Hahaaa.....yeah wasn't terrible
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
camaraderie... amazing. and a formidable wall of text
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
The contrast the rest of this sub provides is making some kind of illusion probably
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Illusion of what? On its face, sure it looks like a writhing pit of hate. But upon closer inspection, it's more like an open wound and there are a lot of people that engage with me in a very polite and nice way privately.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Illusion of civility; and good - hopefully it's helping someone
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I mean you might be a little condescending but that's nothing I can't handle
1 Fernandonut 2018-05-19
There's literally no point in you being here. All you're saying is "oh yeah I know we women get to have fun and sleep around and find ourselves. I know you guys don't but hey we're not so bad." Do you think anyone here wants to hear that shit? Or your humble bragging and patting yourself on the back for talking to us?
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
It's not really supposed to be humble bragging. It's just going to be harder for you if you're oozing hate, and I just thought I'd point out that maybe the hate is a little misplaced.
1 RepresentativeZombie 2018-05-19
Because women's labias get bigger from sex? Or something? Is it based on how many men they have sex with, or the number of times they have sex? What's the logic here?
1 The_Real_Cannaman 2018-05-19
Bigger dicks do that
1 RepresentativeZombie 2018-05-19
No they don't. Anything smaller than a newborn baby isn't going to have any real long-term effect, and even then it's not going to affect the labia in any significant way.
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
You friccin' moron. You just got beaned.
1 escapetheinceldom 2018-05-19
Yes. The more mileage it has the looser it is.
1 ivanttobealone 2018-05-19
i still don't understand how anyone actually believes that the vulva's appearance can change due to multiple sexual partners. if a woman has long labia chances are she's always had long labia
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
You're dumb enough to fall for this meme.
1 ivanttobealone 2018-05-19
omg a MASKED cel, i'm intrigued
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
?
1 ivanttobealone 2018-05-19
a masked cel. a cel of mystery. the Cel in the Iron Mask
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
I was planning on posting videos of myself lifting 315, 405lbs. in a mask to help dispel the stereotype that all incels are fat basement dwelling nerds.
Truth is, some of us just don't have the face for women. And fuck waiting until they're ready to "settle down".
1 ivanttobealone 2018-05-19
but a MASK on the other hand? women love a brooding masked man
that's fair. i wouldn't want to feel "settled for" either
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Cool, we have something agreed upon.
As to the mask, well, my face just isn't good enough for them. Might as well hide it.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
I don't know I think someone out there will love it or maybe someone loves it already
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Shut the fuck up.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Sorry for being lighthearted ?
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Fuck off. Stupid cunt. You and your platitudes.
Go suck off Chad.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
i mean you can say whatever but i have to think it's tiring to type nothing but repetitive angry stuff
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Never gets old telling morons like you to go fuck yourselves.
Cunt.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
hey i mean do what you love
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Cunt.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Right I was delighted what a fun name
1 mittrinilli 2018-05-19
Arbeyscel
1 bengalsturntup5532 2018-05-19
I really love arbys though ,beef n cheddar
1 GuyFromDaStore 2018-05-19
Pussy gets floppy from babies. Once she has her 2nd child its already a Wizard Sleeve.
If she doesn't have a kid her pussy is still tight even in her 50s.
1 GREYnRED 2018-05-19
Gigastacy
1 NutNotBusted 2018-05-19
I am a simple man, I see the roastie meme and I press UP as always
1 Kar98kSnipe 2018-05-19
I had that too but I didn’t like it as much as the buffalo. Still spicy tho
1 maskedcel 2018-05-19
Cool, we have something agreed upon.
As to the mask, well, my face just isn't good enough for them. Might as well hide it.
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
That's a pretty naive perspective (and yes, you never said men are pigs!) - the whole reason the sexual marketplace paradigm (ever player in the market is trying to maximize their upside) is actually pretty useful is because it describes actual behavior rather than what people claim they believe or how they think things should be like.
If a guy has been with a girl for a year lets say and has some sort of confidence and can pull, think about how unlikely it is that he wouldn't act on an opportunity to be with a girl that is hotter, more agreeable, more interested in sex, etc and is a known quantity such that it is clear it would not be risky to make that play (she is not too likely to trade up on the man in the future she wants to lock it in).
If you think he would just gleefully be loyal, then you watch too many romcoms.
Once again, the reason women were faithful earlier in history is because doing what they actually want, trading up opportunistically to get the best possible guy they are capable of, is not a viable strategy when sex results in pregnancy and women at that point were not capable of independent child rearing. Historically, the weight attributed to how loyal a man would be was much greater because choosing a guy who leaves you is potentially ruinous. This meant that the potential value of an average or below average guy was much higher than it is now because they are much less likely to leave you to be with someone else.
1 CommonMisspellingBot 2018-05-19
Hey, youjustabattlerapper, just a quick heads-up:
arguement is actually spelled argument. You can remember it by no e after the u.
Have a nice day!
The parent commenter can reply with 'delete' to delete this comment.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
Second paragraph of your last comment about a strategy that aligns well with having as many partners as possible.
Arranged marriages aren't legitimate because is not gonna happen on a grand scale, regardless of where it's being practiced now.
1 alphonsethegreat 2018-05-19
But it makes more statistical sense that I'm right. There's an exception to every rule out there, so mathematically and anecdotally from my life as a woman surrounded by women... let's all agree that I'm right 😤
This was fun
1 youjustabattlerapper 2018-05-19
Hahaaa.....yeah wasn't terrible