So? I don't see how women experiencing harassment and incels experiencing unfairness is mutually exlusive. Both perspectives are legitimate and shared by millions. One can't properly interpret gender dynamics without this supply & demand rule.
Sexual harassment and rape allegations rapidly being fired off against various streamers
- Thread starter Specter Von Baren
- Start date
Recommended Videos
USA
There isn't a supply and demand issue. Currently, there are more women than men in the US. It is well known that women value personality over appearance, so it does not matter how attractive you are if you are a sexist asshole, you will still come off as less attractive. Men actually have control over their opinions, actions and personality.
A study of 68,000 people has determined what women really look for in a partner, and it's not money or a muscular body
"Kindness" was the most important trait, with nearly 90% of women thinking it was a top priority, followed by "supportiveness" and "intelligence."
www.insider.com
It is sort of like how so many male Trump supporters are complaining about not being able to find a date, THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT and it has nothing to do with a supply and demand issue, or their appearance, it has everything to do with how they view the world and treat others. I agree with the results of the study. If a man is not genuinely compassionate, empathetic and kind, they are not only " not attractive", they are actually repulsive. Oh and women often do have a much higher sex drive than men, we do not have to rest and take breaks in between sex sessions and can have continual multiple orgasms, so we are pretty much built to be able to have more sex than men. Simply because we need to be attracted to a mans personality as well in order to want to have sex with them does not mean we do not crave it just as much if not more than men, it is just no matter how high our sex drive is, a guy making a jerk of himself is always a turn off. At that point, we would rather go home alone, turn on the porn and bust out the toys and take care of ourselves instead of spend another second thinking of the guy who made a jerk of himself ever again. The problem here isn't the women, it is the men who think they can behave however they wish and still be entitled to women's affection and desire. It doesn't work that way.
Last edited:
Incels are not actually experiencing unfairness. If you're a sexist asshole, then it is perfectly fair that no one wants anything to do with you. From what incels actually post about women, that isn't unfair at all. if they choose to view women the way they do, they can expect women to want nothing to do with them. Women not wanting anything to do with jerks is in no way comparable to men taking it upon themselves to harass women. I do not recognize incels arguments as actually being legitimate, they are not entitled to women, their ideas of entitlement are the problem here, you EXPECT people to respond to their thoughts and actions with repulsion as the normal, expected response to someone behaving the way they do in the first place.
On that subject, do you believe in karma? A just world? A world where everyone gets everything they deserve, good or bad?
So Incels are incels because they deserve to be incels? And people who are rich and successful are rich and successful because they deserve to be? Bad things happen to bad people? Good things happen to good people?
Maybe you're exagerating for effect, but women make up 50% of the population and very much have interest in sex. But they also tend to worry a more about whether the person they might be going home with is a total D-bag or not. It's a very real fear.
Also... nothing is fair about attraction and people's preferences, the 2 concepts don't really belong together.
No, I do not believe in "Karma". In reality, the bad guys often win. Many rich people did not earn their wealth, they took what was owed to others in order to obtain it, or had it handed to them. Bad things happen to good people all the time. Good things happen to bad people all the time.
When you actually read what incels think of women, however, shows WHY women want nothing to do with them. That is just cause and effect, nothing to do with "Karma". They act like jerks so they were treated like jerks. It is sort of like turning a light switch off and it actually goes off. Do things that turn a woman off, and she will be turned off. Karma is irrelevant.
Okay.
It just seems like you're making a huge generalization. An incel is, as the name suggests, anyone who is involuntarily celibate. That's like, millions of people. It seems a bit much to claim that they all share the same views that turn women off.
Yeah they are. You make tinder account as reasonably attractive man. No responses. You make tinder account as reasonably attractive woman. Hundreds of responses. The 'incel argument' is shared by millions of men so I don't see how that is a contentious point of debate. The supply & demand rule is definitely in favor of women. It's simple biology. I agree incels are not 'entitled' to women but that is a moral or ethical dilemma inherent to the values of civilized society. Same as why we don't let nature decide who is fit to survive and reproduce but instead let medical science intervene and prioritze genetic regression over survival of the fittest(to put it bluntly). At the same time men having a much higher sex drive but a fraction of the opportunity women have is a curse on the male gender so to speak. It is exactly this tension that will always lead to some form of excess. Men did not ask for their high sex drive, women did not ask for unwanted attention. It's a problem as old as humanity itself and will persist till humanity dies out. You also can't deny that with the advent of the welfare state sexual selection criteria have also been deeply in favor of women. The reason why millions of men today are incel is because criteria such as survival/immunity or being able to provide; criteria that men have been selected for in hundreds of thousands of ancestral years is now moot. Again, just as medical science a sign of progress so is the welfare state and highly advanced society but for many men also reason for not unreasonable frustration. Partner choice is simply in favor of women. Anyone who claims otherwise is a moron.
No, not everyone who can't find a date considers themselves to be incels, it is an actual group and has members:
Incel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Inventing a new definition different than the well known existing one, does not suddenly make everyone who is single and looking for a date an "incel".
That's the thing though: I don't buy the "human nature" argument. The evo-psych thing is all so much sophistry because for it to work, it has to make a lot of assumptions about human nature in a vacuum. Your assumption that Stalin threw soldiers into a meatgrinder because he valued men less than women requires so many leaps of faith to arrive at that it's in the same ballpark as creationism.
It's true though. Women in the reproductive age have the most evolutionary value. They guarantee survival of the species. Sperm comes cheap.
You do realize that women can have a higher sex drive than men while at the same time, STILL have unwanted attention? The high sex drive argument is nonsense. I have had a higher sex drive than any man I have ever dated. Men get soft and sore and have to take breaks. Women do not have this problem. Women can have sex 7 times in a row on the same day and still go another 7 times with no negative impact and STILL need to pleasure themselves afterwards. Men think you are trying to kill them if you expect that from them, and act like "it will fall off.". Women being more selective in a partner does not suddenly mean that men are being treated unfairly, maybe the guys who are typing out all that "resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, " and promoting violence against women on incel pity party sites should spend more time working on improving how they view others and the world they live in and less time nurturing unhealthy, sadistic, toxic behaviors. If they are not a genuinely kind and thoughtful person to others, why would they expect anyone to treat them any different? Life is too short to waste it on a toxic person.
Viewing women and men as "eggs and sperm" is part of the problem here. Women do not want to have children with an unkind father. Women want their children to have a loving, kind, supportive father that will put their children above all else in this world. Women do not view men as " sperm" and do not view themselves as " eggs" in the first place.
Proving my point, bro. People are far more complicated than the gametes our bodies produce and to pretend otherwise is willful foolishness. I do not personally look at a woman and think of her as a potential baby incubator. I think of her as a person. If you do think of women as just their eggs, then you're the problem.
And let's break down the logic for a second. Let's assume for a moment that the primary selective pressure of early humanity's environment was just about who could reproduce the most efficiently. Okay, assuming that, then how the fuck could humanity have lasted thousands of years, nevermind almost a quarter million? Seriously, our reproductive cycle is weird. The fetus takes 9 months to develop and then when it comes out the baby is literally helpless for years. And our skulls are so damn large in proportion to our bodies that it is actually possible, hell even likely back in those days, to die during childbirth. Most young mammals are viable on their own at very young ages, even in proportion to their average lifespan. On the other hand, it takes us the better part of 2 decades to reach adulthood. A dog can expect to live about 15 years and will reach maturity within its first year give or take a couple months. That's like a 75-year-old-man who hit puberty at age 3 and finished at 5.
So how exactly do all of these arbitrary, bizarre and often counter-productive traits about our reproductive cycle confer the female half of the species with "evolutionary value" over the male half? And while we're at it, what the hell does "evolutionary value" even mean?
Why go out to collect your pizza when all the pizza companies will deliver to you?
This isn't necessarily anything to do with sex drive,but about how much effort you need to put in. As a woman, why do you need to look for men when you're being bombarded with enough offers already?
Let's imagine men went on a sort of sex strike: they all collectively decided to drastically reduce hitting on women. I bet you that women would start doing a lot more of the searching and asking.
Men are more pre-occupied with sex than women because of hormonal differences and even if women desire sex more it is not because of desperate physical urge but more a sensual longing or need to be desired from a very selective amount of men. You won't hear of women sexually harassing men. The idea of women paying for sex is laughable. There is simply no desperation in the female sex-drive because the biology of male and female sex-drive is completely different. Read stories about female to male transgenders and how testosterone injections made them crazy with sexual desire. If men are sexual women are sensual and these are very different things. It is the very reason why women are picky and men are not.
No ofcourse not. Women want healthy offspring with a select amount of men and men want to have sex with as many women as possible. Society inhibits these primal instincts but evolutionary selection criteria will always favor women simply because they have more value in the reproductive age than men. It is the reason why monogamy was implemented in the first place. Women would rather be the third or fourth wife of a an attractive/highly desired man than the first and only wife of an unattractive/lowly desired chump. Society has always tried to regulate man's natural instincts.
Ladies? This doing anything for you?
Wow! Do you not talk to a lot of women? Do you not think love is a real thing?
I can't say I'm surprised that MRA's, pickup artists and the rest of Toxic Testosterone Team are still telling each other this lie. If your natural instinct is to be a philandering creep, it's not because your DNA is forcing you to. You're just a creep. If you're on a date with a woman and tell her that society is holding you back from your primitive male instincts, she's going to assume you put something in her drink. This has nothing to do with evolution and everything with lifestyle choices.
Like men would stick to a sex strike, some would just see that as an "opportunity". HAHA! I have never used a dating site, nor could I imagine needing to do so. You're right, women get hit on everywhere we go in person, we do not need to look for relationships because we are bombarded by offers. None of my sisters or friends need to use dating sites either. There are always less women than men on dating sites because less women need to use them at all, and tbh, they creep a lot of women out. There is nothing exciting or interesting about having a ton of guys spam you the same thing they spammed to however many other women on the site hoping that one will respond. The entire premise is like the douchebag in the club walking up to every woman in the place with the same cheezy pick up line and hoping one is drunk enough to not dump a drink on them. Why would anyone worth spending time with want to date someone like that in the first place? The entire concept sounds awful and only for people with terribly low self esteem. IF that is where men are looking for dates and upset they are rejected, maybe they need to understand that is what happens when you put forth so little effort.
Yea, that is a guaranteed 100% way to make women run like they are on fire, not attract them. The idea that ANY guy actually thinks this is what a woman wants is beyond laughable. Seriously, it is like they have never even interacted with women, like at all. I seriously cannot believe anyone would be able to say any of that with a straight face.
For the majority of human history, that's how it's been. Marrying for love is a relatively recent concept.
Doesn't that just prove stroopwafel's argument, though?