The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive will soon be coming to a close. If you haven’t already, please consider donating through the PayPal button below. (The PayPal page will say you are donating to Man Boobz.) Thanks!
Sluthate’s “shitty advice” forum, devoted to discussing such high-minded topics as “Do fat women have dirtier vaginas?” and “why is rape bad,” is a haven for embittered “incels” — self-described “involuntary celibates” — who’ve convinced themselves that they are too objectively unattractive and un-alpha to attract attention from the cruel and superficial “sluts” of the world — a category that seems to include all the women they find attractive.
Back when the forum was known as PUAhate, it was a regular hangout of one especially embittered incel, a young man known as Elliot Rodger, who last year killed six in Isla Vista California, and then himself, in what he called his “Day of Retribution” against women. Many of Sluthate’s regulars, unsurprisingly, have embraced “ER” as a kind of incel martyr.
Now they’ve found a new and improved hero: Andreas Lubitz, the troubled co-pilot who, French officials say, deliberately flew Germanwings Flight 9525 into a mountain in the French Alps.
In a topic entitled BREAKING: Co-pilot was incel and crashed the plane!!!, Sluthate regulars have embraced Lubitz as “one of them” — and are enthusiastically celebrating his alleged mass murder as the possible beginning of a “Beta uprising.”
“New high score, and in a much shorter time too,” a commenter calling himself gobman3000 wrote happily. “Damn, legitimate SLAYER.”
Alienfranco was even more enthusiastic:
What a fucking SLAYER.
Did you ever know that you’re my hero? You are the wind beneath my WINGS. …
Why go out with a whimper when you can go out with a BANG? An incel killing 150+ people will make a lot more of an impact than killing 1 asshole or a few assholes.
A large percentage of the 150+ people on that plane were sluts and Chads anyway.
Hopefully all these incel killings get to a point where society will fear autists/incels and give us $2000/month and subsidized prostitution to placate us from killing normalfags.
OmegaKV noted that many of the passengers on the plane “were teenagers who were vacationing,” concluding
This was DEFINITELY an incel motivated plane crash.
He couldn’t take it too see so many good looking and happy teenagers with gfs, experiencing the adolescence he always longed for but never got, so took advantage of the perfect opportunity to kill himself while taking the teenage normalfags with him.
PuaKiller agreed:
Yeah. He definitely knew what he was doing. I can only imagine what he was feeling in that moment. Wow. …
This one is going in the hall of fame!
Largely dismissing the news reports suggesting that Lubitz did, in fact, have a girlfriend, the regulars examined each new picture of the alleged mass murderer that appeared in the media for telltale signs of his incel status.
PJ1 was brutal in his assessment:
-looks like a manlet from his proportions. I’d honestly be surprised if he’s over 5 10
-small frame
-critical balding
-beta face
OldRooster1 agreed:
guy does look like an incel manlet that came to the realization that the status of being a pilot was not enough to overcome his 3.5/10 looks/body.
“Look at that frame, he’s about 60kg soaking wet,” Jigar added. “I’d be surprised if his wrists were a hair over 6 inches thick.”
Still another commenter labeled him a “betafaced framecel” — whatever that is — and “the kind of guy that’s INVISIBLE.”
These are harsh assessments, to be sure, and in some cases seem to have virtually no connection with the photographic evidence, but the Sluthate regulars tend to be equally harsh in their assessments of themselves. Thread-starter Zark_Muckerberg, for example, attaches a sig to each of his posts quantifying his romantic and sexual failures:
gfs: 0
kisses: 0
handjobs: 0
blowjobs: 0
intercourse: 0
Having convinced themselves that they will never be able to have a life equal to that of the world’s “good looking and happy … normalfags,” the Sluthaters feel Lubitz’ pain — or, at least, the pain they imagine he felt.
Flawed Mentat blamed the killings on an uncaring world that didn’t deliver Lubitz the “good woman” he deserved.
HE did not fire the first shot. Women and Society, blase, branded HIM as non human, invisible, an object of scorn and laughter. So, when it sunk in that all his effort was in vain, there were no good women awaiting him, life was gonna be just as empty, lonely and horrifying as before he even started training as a pilot, well, he probably logically decided to declare war back on the human race, since it was open in its war on him.
ThereIsNoGame agreed:
Just lol @ reddit comments saying how creepy it is that he didn’t think about the lives of all the people he killed.
Yeah, well what about all the people who never gave a fuck about him. He was probably treated like shit over and over again.
Society never looks itself in the mirror when it is to blame.
Don’t treat people like shit and shit wont happen. Why is that so hard to understand?
He ended his comment with this chilling warning-cum-threat.
looks like more people will need to die until the message is drilled in.
Zygominati directed his ire at a familiar target:
I blame feminism for this. In days gone by pilots would flirt with stewardesses and pinch their arses. They would leave their hotel room ajar for layover shenanigans. Now they are bus drivers in the sky that can’t even take a shit. This incel was probably sold a dream and after countless hours of flight time realised there is nothing there.
Meanwhile, the few Sluthaters who didn’t utterly dismiss the news reports of Lubitz having a girlfriend seized on the reports that the two had broken up — and blamed the girlfriend for “cucking” him. As Patriarch put it,
If its true that his girlfriend cucked or dumped him, just imagine how smug this entitled shitcunt must feel like right now. Looking at him, she was a 4 at best but now she gets her own little fairytale drama story and she gets to go on TV and talk about how awful she feels and how she never expected this to happen. In the aftermath, a bunch of whiteknights will whiteknight her into oblivion and probably donate a million € to her fundme so she can learn to deal with this tragedy…. Fucking feminist shitcunt society
It goes without saying that all of these embittered rants are based almost entirely on projection. We know very little about Lubitz, or what might have motivated him to (allegedly) crash the plane, killing 149 innocent human beings and himself.
While news reports suggest that he had suffered from depression and from some other mental illnesses as yet unnamed, these revelations raise more questions than they answer. Depression can certainly contribute to suicide, but mass murder? Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than victimizers.
While it seems clear that Lubitz was not literally an “incel” — he apparently did have a girlfriend — it’s certainly possible that he crashed the plane because he was upset over a breakup with that girlfriend, or angry at women in general.
That’s not a conclusion we can draw based on looking at Lubitz’s “waist-hip-ratio” or the size of his wrists. It’s a possibility we can raise based on our understanding of how murder/suicides unfold in the real world.
As I pointed out yesterday, murder/suicide is overwhelmingly a male crime, and the victims are often wives, girlfriends or exes. Breakups often trigger rage in men, and a few take this rage out on the women they feel have wronged them. Or, in extreme cases, on women in general. The intended targets of Elliot Rodger’s rampage were what the “spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut[s]” in a local sorority. (Luckily, he was barred at the door and his plan collapsed.)
But even if Lubitz was driven by “incel rage” or something much like it, it’s worth pointing out that this rage is based on bullshit. Elliot Rodger was not objectively unattractive; his problems with women came from within, from a mixture of embittered entitlement, self-hatred and an assortment of other psychological demons.
Similarly, the rage of Sluthate’s incels is driven not by the actual behavior of women in the real world but by their fucked-up ideas about women — and themselves. Sluthaters hate themselves as much as they hate “sluts,” and project their own hyper-critical assessments of their own looks onto the women they think are perpetually judging them and finding them wanting. Ironically, they themselves view women with the same hyper-critical eyes, dismissing all but a handful of young, conventionally attractive women as “fugly hambeasts” and the like.
Sluthate reinforces a poisonous and supremely self-defeating way of looking at the world. Whether or not Lubitz was driven by “incel rage,” I think we have every reason to worry that Sluthate and other internet forums devoted to “incels” may be breeding more “heroes” like Elliot Rodger and, possibly, Andreas Lubitz.
@Gandyforeverandever
“Isn’t it just plainly more likely that a certain segment of the population, probably mostly male, are just very undesirable mates, to the extent that their lives are quite unpleasant, without possessing any particularly morally negative qualities.”
Oh, they’re undesirable mates all right. You think they can hide their seething hatred of women when they’re around women? Hating women as a whole and cheering on men who kill women is morally negative, sorry.
“I don’t know – isn’t that all a bit too convenient, like how the poor guy who complains about wealth inequality clearly is only poor due to his personal failings”
Yes, it’s all the system’s fault! If only we could have some kind of Incel Welfare System, and supply every incel with a girlfriend. Or maybe institute some kind of minimum fucks per year setup for incels. Because women are things that men are entitled to.
“I think we need to start recognising the importance of looks – and the ugliness of our own motivations when it comes to choosing a mate.”
Because what would women know about being judged on their looks?
” Whats’ the deal with the left doing this for things like looks or other components of sexual attraction?”
ooooooh you got us lefties, we’re so hypocritical, thinking that women and men should be allowed to choose who they get involved with romantically and sexually, instead of being forced or shamed into dating people they’re not attracted to just because it’s not fair that some incel isn’t getting his dick wet on the regular.
“Doesn’t anyone see something problematic with highly successful people such as David Futrelle talking, you know, about people who in all honesty are probably in the midst some of those who live some of the worst lives around in the West.”
Yeah, being single and wanting a partner is the worst thing in the West ever. At least cancer sufferers aren’t incel, damn it.
I think that puahater, unlike indole, is probably a sock puppet. Hell, maybe he’s MRAL. I doubt he’s an actual incel, or if so that he really buys what he’s saying. I will just note that if we accept his definition of “chad” — a chad is an athlete taller than 6′ — it’s basically impossible for that flight to have been full of nothing but chads.
Your comparison is a faulty one, because money is something that is a requirement in our society to obtain physical needs, like food and shelter. Sex is not a need, and people will not die if they do not get it.
Furthermore, asking for, oh, I don’t know, minimum wage to be an actual living wage doesn’t infringe on anyone’s bodily autonomy. Demanding that there’s an equal distribution of blowjobs/sex, regardless of women’s say in the matter, does.
Finally, feminists don’t get pissy when people bring up the idea that we live in a society where unattainable looks and body types are held up as a standard to which we should all conform. Feminists don’t like body shaming or body policing. These guys, however, instead of seeking out ways to change societal outlooks on physical appearance, stew in rage and misogyny and bitterness while lauding and encouraging people who are literal mass murderers. And that is wrong. I cannot emphasise how wrong that is and how awful the sluthaters are.
Gandyforeverandever, your argument falls apart when you consider the reality that most ugly men still manage to have sex. The left recognizes structural inequality based on income, sex and race because it exists. There is no such structural inequality against ugly men.
Self-proclaimed incels feel they should be allowed to sleep with any woman they want, and that women choosing who they want to sleep with is a grave injustice. It isn’t so much their own looks that they are hung up on, but their lack of ability to control women.
Their scapegoating of “alphas” has more in common with reactionaries targeting various groups for abuse than jealousy about looks. After all, not everybody with the stereotypical “alpha” personality is conventionally handsome.
Finally, it’s such a one-sided view of things. Do they think that they owe ugly women sex, and that they should be forced to comply if a woman they don’t find attractive want to sleep with them? Of course not. Because, to them, women aren’t people with needs, feelings or desires.
@Gandyforeverandever
I was slightly stunned when I learned about the manosphere via this blog and discovered that some men inexplicably think people deserve, earn, are given and/or rewarded with a sexual or romantic partner for being a good person aka “personal merits”. It’s not some hidden gynocentric bluepill conspiracy that people in free societies voluntarily form sexual and romantic relationships that benefit themselves in a variety of ways. The reasons are endless, from physical attraction, status, companionship, shared interests, sexual compatibility, emotional compatibility, social convention, religious obligations, etc. This seems so ridiculously obvious to me I feel a bit silly typing it out.
I can assure that girls generally learn very early in life that how others view and grade their physical looks will greatly and often ruthlessly effect their lives in numerous ways. I assumed boys picked up on that as well.
It would be grand if everyone had heaps of personal happiness, but you have to be remarkably obsessed with individualistic concerns if you’re an adult who’s shocked that other people aren’t actively hard at work to make that happen for you in particular. The Left is a mishmash that tries all sorts of ways addresses both collective needs to make a fairer, more equitable world in terms of economics, social roles and political systems and individual needs in terms of personal freedoms. That doesn’t however include getting you personally laid.
All incels care about themselves and themselves alone, obsessively to the point that the entire world is made of guys they believe are exactly like themselves and everyone else, all of whom are either cruelly ignoring them, mocking them and/or actively fucking them over instead fucking them.
There are no doubt unhappy but their own lives on feel like the “worst” in the West because that’s the only life that matters to them. Goddamn guys, go read Camus or something and shake off that adolescent solipsism.
The fact that you think result of poverty is a lot of people obsessed with money the way horny adolescent boys are obsessed with sex is pretty telling. Redpill pseudo-philosophy is pathetic in part because the only economics that matter are personal dating costs and hypothetical future marriage assets. It’s also pathetic because it involves no real understanding of the consumer culture that shapes and dominates our lives in the West. It’s also also pathetic for a whole slew of other reasons.
Am I given to understand that puahater thinks that women are evil and trying to enslave men if they want to go someplace nicer than McDonald’s on a date but in a post too repugnant to be let through, he thinks the government should force women to give me sex?
Which leads me to you gandy, after reading that do you really want to still say we’re the ones who are hypocrites?
If you two would actually open your eyes and look at the world around you, you’d notice that a lot of guys who are short, stocky, scrawny, geeky,whatever, are in happy relationships. Not usually with Victoria’s Secret models, but still.
You also need to ask yourselves why the incel community seems to be exclusively male and cishet. Hint: privileged entitlement and misogyny might have something to do with it. I’m a woman who’s been single for longer than I’d care to admit. Yet it doesn’t occur to me think that men are evil or that they should be forced to be with me. I’m able to recognize that it’s because I’m on the shy side, my social circle are all coupled off so I don’t meet a lot of single men, and I just plain haven’t tried, haven’t put myself out there. I can see that it’s because I have issues I haven’t worked out. I wasn’t cheated by society. That’s because women are socialized to believe that if we’re having dating trouble, there’s something wrong with us. Men are socialized to believe that if they have the same troubles, there’s something wrong with everyone else. A little critical thinking would make you a lot less miserable.
In that first paragraph it should say “give men sex” not “give me sex.”
That’s quite an unfortunate typo!
QFT.
There are women out there who would sleep withe them, who would be THRILLED to be in relationships with them regardless of their looks or cashflow…as long as they can get past being lazy* assholes.
* I include “lazy” because I have known several guys who have said that women have broken up with them because they “weren’t rich” when the truth was closer to “because they didn’t get off of their computer long enough to bathe, let alone interact IRL”.
Goddamn, Puahater’s material is funny. What can I say, it reads like a parody of their bullshit… but then it becomes less funny when I realize these people actually believe this bullshit and I can’t tell for certain if they actually believe it.
Well, there goes my good mood.
I’m gonna join the others here who’ve already taken this apart, and say you’re comparing apples to oranges. Socialism is a politico-economic philosophy; it doesn’t allow for distribution of sex, equitable or otherwise, for the simple reason that SEX IS NOT A COMMODITY. I figured I’d allcaps that so you don’t miss the message. WOMEN ARE NOT COMMODITIES EITHER. Know why that is? Because NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO ANOTHER PERSON, OR SEX WITH ANOTHER PERSON. SEX IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.
I guess what I’m really trying to say here is, yeah, when it comes to romantic failure, these guys’ attitudes are a HUGE part of the problem. They all want perfect partners, who apparently have no wants or needs or desires of their own. They think they deserve gold stars and free sex, presumably provided by government-pimped prostitutes, not for burning the whole world down, for fuck’s sake. And then they wonder why all the women edge away from them when they open their mouths and this shit comes out? How the hell is this NOT their own fault?
Ugh…”not for burning the whole world down” should read “for NOT burning the whole world down”.
This PUAhate idiocy is so full of shit that it’s messing with my syntax.
Orion – you’re not the only one: my MRALdar was pinging like mad when I read Puahater’s comments.
Is there a single “incel” cliché that he didn’t include? Or present entirely uncritically?
And why would anyone want to join someone who at the very least appears to be a blatant sockpuppet? Call me weird, but I prefer my revolutionary activists to display more genuine conviction.
Okay, so from the responses to my post I think i’ve gotten two themes:
Firstly, that even if one admits that incels disadvantage causes them a huge deal of pain, it doesn’t count as a political issue because, well, its to do with sex, its like women choosing to avoid them which we’ve just got to accept even if its totally unfair/for amoral reasons
I appeciate that it seems we have to draw some distinctions between the economic and personal realms, but essentially this seems like a restatement of the ‘its okay to be racist, or pay women less, because its a matter of individual choice.
the second seems to be that, well, that the incels problems aren’t really that significant:
I can’t imagine you really believe this??! After food, water, housing and so on, sexual/romanatic relationships are probably the most crucial area of somebodies life! surely you can appreciate how much utter rejection in this regard must hurt? Take a second to step into their shoes. God, this really is parallel to a rich guy telling with a good job and prospects telling people that poverty isn’t so bad cause he was poor once in college.
And finally, just a restatement of the idea that it MUSSST be Sluthaters awful personalities which cause women to reject them! Eh? If we admit looks and more amoral standards of personality matter, and some people have really awful looks, then, like, I don’t know, it just stands to reason some people will really have a hard time in dating. I think this is logically worse for men for a number of reasons:
1. men desire short term sex significantly more than women, and their status is significantly more determined by this.
2. Women are more ‘picky’ – and can, at least for short term affairs, score above their ‘level.’
3. In terms of the affects of personalities, it seems well established that ‘nerdy’ males tend to do worse with women than men of other personality types. I don’t think there is such a significant deficit for nerdy females (men may prefer non nerds, but don’t seem to be attracted to the same type of social skills which women like from men, which nerds don’t have.)
So all this stands to reason there is really often going to be a subset of men who just really, really struggle with this sort of shit. and that is an issue which just does plainly has moral weight.
Gandy, I’ll ask you directly: can you imagine a woman that you would turn down if she wanted to sleep with you?
If the answer is “yes,” how is it less unfair/amoral than a woman choosing not to sleep with a man?
You’re views reduce women to props, to resources that should be distributed more equally among men.
“1. men desire short term sex significantly more than women, and their status is significantly more determined by this. ”
How do men know how strongly women desire short term sex? Couldn’t it be that women are just more likely to be shamed for having such desires and so they don’t mention it as much? And why is men’s status tied to having sex? Could it be…toxic masculinity?
How is “people don’t wanna sex me” a moral issue? Is it immoral to only have sex with those you want to?
No. People can survive without sexual or romantic relationships. While those relationships can be very important, they are certainly not essential.
I find it interesting that you seem to think none of us have been rejected before. Rejection is a part of life. Everyone will be rejected at some point. It sucks when it happens, but you have two choices:
1. Pick yourself up, figure out what went wrong, and try again, or
2. Wallow in misery and self pity, blaming someone else for your pain.
You’re going to have much more success if you keep trying. Guess which route the Sluthaters take?
Yes. Have you seen the hateful comments from these guys? They constantly refer to women as “bitches.” They clearly have no interest in forming a meaningful relationship. If they talk to actual women like that (instead of just over the internet), it’s not a surprise that women avoid them. Most women don’t want to spend time with men who clearly don’t respect them.
Citation needed. You are talking about men as single, homogeneous group, rather than individuals who have their own opinions and preferences. Not all men want the same thing.
My boyfriend is a great example of the exact opposite of what you describe. We’ve been together for over two years and most of that time we have been living in different countries. If all men want is sex with as many women as possible, he certainly wouldn’t be putting in the time, money and effort to maintain this relationship.
Again, citation needed. You are now referring to women as homogenous group. Yes, some women are more picky about who they sleep with, but some aren’t. We are all individuals with our own desires and we should be free to make those decisions for ourselves, without your judgement.
Assigning people to levels is also a problem. People are complex. They’re not all going to fit in your predefined boxes.
I think you are trying to say that nerdy men have a harder time dating than nerdy women. Again, you are generalizing these populations and basing your assumptions on stereotypes. Yes, differences in social skills may make dating more difficult for some people, but those are things that can be overcome. Many nerdy men find very fulfilling relationships with nerdy women, probably because they share similar interests that can be used as a foundation for that relationship.
TL;DR: Your ideas are unsupported and based on generalizations.
I have every sympathy imaginable for genuinely nice people who make real efforts to meet compatible partners and keep getting knocked back – indeed, a friend of mine is in that position right now, and I couldn’t be more supportive.
But I have no sympathy at all for the likes of Elliot Rodger and the guy who proudly boasted “Rejections: 0” because all the evidence suggests that they seriously expect sex to be handed to them on a plate without them making even the tiniest effort on their part. Sorry, but the real world just doesn’t work like that. You don’t ask, you don’t get.
Of course. But even in that short paragraph you’re barking up the wrong tree. Success at dating has nothing to do with “more amoral standards” (seriously, this is a deeply, deeply toxic fiction that you really need to expunge from your worldview) – it’s to do with being pleasant company. It really is that simple.
And yes, if the dice were stacked against you in the looks department, that’s unfortunate – but that’s where being pleasant company is even more important. And this really, really isn’t difficult – you just need to master the basic social niceties of two-way conversation, being a good listener and gauging whether the person you’re with is actually interested in what you’re saying or just being polite. Talk to people, as opposed to at them.
1. men desire short term sex significantly more than women, and their status is significantly more determined by this.
2. Women are more ‘picky’ – and can, at least for short term affairs, score above their ‘level.’
3. In terms of the affects of personalities, it seems well established that ‘nerdy’ males tend to do worse with women than men of other personality types. I don’t think there is such a significant deficit for nerdy females (men may prefer non nerds, but don’t seem to be attracted to the same type of social skills which women like from men, which nerds don’t have.)
So all this stands to reason there is really often going to be a subset of men who just really, really struggle with this sort of shit. and that is an issue which just does plainly has moral weight.
OK, another piece of advice: stop obsessing about “level” and “status”. We’re talking about one-to-one relationships. I genuinely couldn’t give two hoots about what the outside world thinks about my various partners – the only thing that ultimately matters to me is whether I like them (and of course vice versa, which is also pretty crucial).
What’s my “level” and “status”? I genuinely don’t have a clue. Hell, I don’t even know what I weigh right now, and I didn’t when I was last in the dating game (I didn’t even own any scales when I was living alone).
As for “nerdy” males, there have never been greater opportunities in the whole of human history for them to find like-minded partners. There really, really hasn’t. You just need to actively look for them, and stop obsessing about shallow and insignificant surface traits. Read some of the anecdotes here from women who fell in love with ultra-shy “engineer” types. Read more about women who tick the same boxes themselves.
In fact, read more about (and by) women generally – because much of the time I get the impression that these so-called “incels” have barely so much as glanced at a real-life woman, much less made an effort to get to know her. During my last significant dry spell in my early twenties, I spent much of it devouring women’s writing about sex, preferably detailed first-person accounts. And this was 25 years ago, when such things were harder and more expensive to track down than they are now – today, this couldn’t be easier. And in addition to learning huge amounts about women’s sexual responses (and their bewildering diversity), I learned a huge amount about what women actually wanted from their partners – which almost invariably boiled down to some very simple ingredients: being a good listener, having a good sense of humour, being reliable and being fundamentally decent (the last of which certainly doesn’t preclude having exotic sexual interests to be explored with a mutually consenting partner – the “decent” part derives from respecting what your partner does and doesn’t want to do).
In other words, pretty much the exact opposite to what sluthaters preach.
Feel free to ignore or belittle my advice, but it’s demonstrably been a damn sight more successful than nihilistic raging against “bitches” and “hos”. Not least because I ended up in a blissfully happy marriage with a woman who now (get ready to have your mind blown) earns more than I do. And not just slightly more: we’re talking around five or six times my income. And yet somehow she still stays with me, and I haven’t detected even the tiniest molecule of evidence that she’d like her life to be any different – and since she’s not exactly shy about being brutally honest (neither am I), I sincerely doubt that she’s just putting a brave face on things. And neither of us could care less what the outside world thinks because we’re the ones that are happy about our situation.
http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/picard_facepalm1.jpg
Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Everyone is entitled to equal rights and fair pay. Those things are commodities and being made to share these things hurts nobody. What everyone is NOT entitled to is other people’s sex and bodies, because they’re NOT commodities! Instead people, including women, have the right to bodily autonomy – they get to choose who they share their physical beings with. This is not an injustice against incels! This is not a political issue! And just because it hurts the incels fee-fees to not be as popular with the women as they’d like, does not mean that women need to grit their teeth and endure sex they don’t want with someone who dehumanizes them. SEX IS NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. BODILY AUTONOMY IS.
Gaaah – blockquote monster! My reply starts with “OK, another piece of advice” – the numbered list and “So all this stands to reason…” should also have been blockquoted.
Sorry about that.
Sex isn’t political. It’s not a finite resource that the “haves” are conspiring to keep from the “have nots”. That’s why all these calls for violence and revolution are ridiculous.
Maybe the problem is that you’re all playing the wrong game. You’re seeking validation through sex (and only sex with women that the community deems valuable, ie young, thin, conventionally attractive, etc.). You yourself said that “status is more significantly determined by this”. Why? Who is policing it?
What are you really looking for? If you’re just interested in sport-fucking and bragging rights, then yeah, unfortunately, you’re probably not going to be able to compete with good-looking, outgoing, confident guys. But in the long run, does that really matter? If these alpha guys are such assholes, why would you want to emulate them? Aren’t there better ways of feeling good about yourself that don’t involve treating women like disposable, alien objects? Why invest your entire self-worth in such a brutal, self-defeating paradigm?
If, on the other hand, you want a steady girlfriend, then you need to be up to the hard work of creating and sustaining a relationship. There’s a lot of give and take in relationships. You can’t approach it with the attitude of “what’s in it for me?” and decide you’re going to bail the moment the other person shows signs of having their own needs. You reap what you sow. If you want a caring girlfriend, then be a caring boyfriend and be willing to sacrifice occasionally and take her someplace other than McDonald’s, if that’s what she wants. Most girls aren’t looking to be uncomplaining sexbots in a relationship. That just isn’t realistic.
Also, you’re dead wrong about nerdy females having it easier than nerdy males. Nerdy females may not suffer under the self-imposed pressure to publicly prove they’re having sex, but they certainly do feel the agonizing pain of rejection, and the inadequacies of not measuring up to society’s beauty standards. Male nerds have options that female nerds don’t. Male nerd, and not good looking? Fine, go be funny or smart or talented or entrepeneurial or interesting. Female nerds? OMG WEAR A PAPER BAG OVER YOUR HEAD AND GO DIE YOU HIDEOUS LAND WHALE. Yes, women are “allowed” to be quirky, but only if they’re also hot.
If you’re really interested in a revolution, how about working to change society’s unrealistic expectations, instead of society itself? 149 dead bodies aren’t going to solve anything. The way to end your pain isn’t to create more pain.
sb77:
Of course, but, I mean, this is the classic question of political philosophy, which I think, most agree apon: actions which are individually permissable can add up to an important social ills.
Does my preference for black women make me an immoral person? But if everyone shared my preference, things would seem undoubtably ‘unfair’ towards white women.
Or, to reach for a more familar example, if nothing is wrong to give wilt chamberlain some money to see him play basketball, how can we oppose the inequalities in wealth that would occur if large numbers of people decided to act like me?
The fact is that, unfortunately, we live in a world where in many cases, choices which on an individual level seem totally okay can add up to a decidedly worse situation than if peoples’ choices were more constrained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
EJ:
How familiar are with you with studies on gender difference? I ask because, well, you don’t seem very familar with them. I think the sensible conclusion now is that a large portion of gender differentiated behaviour is innate, with little to do with men are raised in a culture of ‘toxic masculinity’ or such. you seem to also take exception to the idea of ‘generalising’ about men per say, which I just find baffling. How on earth do you feel equipped to discuss political questions, talk about ‘MRAs’ talk about male culture, about ‘toxic masculinity’ if you feel unable to make any kind of generalisations about groups of people.
Of course, if you believed i was just making a hard case for something, that ALL men are like X and ALL women like Y, I mean, of course you’d be right to say that I was overgeneralising, but I don’t mean it like that at all.
And I mean stuff like ‘social skills deficiets can be overcome’ — where do you get that from?! You can’t just throw out these plattitudes and just expect people to be quiet! HOW do you know social skill deficits can be overcome? What studies have you read? Don’t tell me this belief comes from your own PERSONAL experience? You couldn’t possibly have written that a mere paragraph after you’ve laid into me for the totally unjustified/unrealistic generalisation that men just might happen to care more about casual sex than women!
oh also i apologise for my awful spelling/syntax, i have a bit of brain damage so i’m really bad at all this shit (no jokes please! :P)
Gandy, we have been repeating ourselves answering your posts and yet you are consistently ignoring our points and trying to make out that incels not getting laid is a problem society needs to address. It’s not. They are small in number and have only themselves to blame. Their stinking attitude towards women is what puts women off. They will not die without sex and it is not a human right. Them not getting any is most certainly not a “social ill” or comparable to racism, and no woman should ever be obliged to sleep with them, no matter how upset they get about sleeping alone at night.
These are truths. Real truths, not biotroofs. It’s as simple as we can make it and I for one am tired of having to explain things that anyone who doesn’t live in a cave on Mars should know.
@Gandy,
Is it so hard to understand that society doesn’t owe you a girlfriend? Women don’t owe you sex, love, affection. What is so difficult to grasp here? I don’t get it.
FFS, you didn’t “logically” think these bullet points up yourself. I know that because every single incel parrots these exact same talking points endlessly. This includes the classic dismissal of women’s experiences with rejection, romantic disappointment and/or social failures. Incels like to pretend that these “facts” (psst, they’re not remotely factual) allow them to deflect all calls for sympathy or empathy towards women and to continue to focus solely on their own personal feelings, sexual frustration and/or festering bitterness.
FFS, in this thread, like every fucking thread with a solipsistic incel, there are women discussing their own romantic disappointments and social failures, all of which are completely ignored. Women are apparently not only responsible for incels’ misery, they’re also incapable of experiencing the depths of pain that are solely the purview of male incels.
Show me one example of an incel who “steps into the shoes” of women with any real amount of empathy. Hell, show me an example where they actually listen and genuinely ponder about what they heard. Show me an example where they consider the problems of people who aren’t men exactly like themselves. For instance, try to imagine the adolescence of a very unattractive girl or consider the life of a socially isolated and lonely elderly person. (Note: I know none of these things will happen.)
I’m giving up on trying yet again to explain the difference between actual deprivations, which involve things likes food, water, medical care, physical safety and shelter, and the lack of a significant other. It’s not like discussing romantic frustrations is verboten in modern American society, go check out the huge self help sections in bookstores. Social movements and political change don’t work at solving your personal relationship issues. Sorry dude, that’s up to you.
FFS.