YOU claimed that women are inherently inferior in math, while at the same time insisting that all is equal. Your contradiction, not mine. Live with it, and don´t try to change the subject. — Nobeernolife

You are either mistaking me for someone else, or else you notoriously put words in the mouth of people.

You are... despicable in your building arguments.

You are... a megalomaniac, little smut of a control-freak.

What the heck is "don't try to change the subjec"? Are you some sort of authority figure? In your head, maybe. You can't tell people on this forum what to do and what to say. You don't have that power invested in you by anyone. You are completely disoriented about your role on this forum, about the nature of this forum, and about your place and function on this forum.

Your anger is futile. You are a nobody, and you'd better get used to that idea.

I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. Men have learned to safely assume that everything she says, is a manipulative lie. Even if it is occasionally not a lie, it is better to convince yourself that it is one. Better safe than sorry. In the physical space, for reasons of security, interact only with other men. Furthermore, whatever romantic ideas you thought you would act upon, go and do that in another jurisdiction. It costs usually less than $100 to fly out of the sexual danger zone of the West to the nearest-by free country.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm not sure you know what makes a lie a lie to begin with, if anything it just sounds like you suffer from a severe communications deficit, and chalk your own linguistic ineptitude up to 'lies' on the part of others.

Well, you’re not living in the West by my understanding - your perception of it is serving to justify your rejection of it, so I’ll take that with a pinch of salt, if you don’t mind. — Possibility

I used to live in the West. I grew up there. It is true that other societies make more sense to me. The less a society is westernized, the better I tend to like it. I saw the West becoming worse and worse, actually until it became the horror story that it is today.

You’re only expressing a general fear and misunderstanding of women — Possibility

Well, if a woman starts black mouthing you and even spreading outright lies about you, it can be very damaging to your reputation as a man. As I have said, better safe than sorry.

You see, Weinstein is undoubtedly an arsehole, just like pretty much anybody who has the power to recruit or reject aspiring actresses. Power corrupts. It is so obvious that he could extract sex out of these girls, in exchange for some vague promises. Still, it takes two to tango. These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you.

To feel that you are only ‘safe’ in the company of your own sex. — Possibility

That is pretty much what I think it is. The indiscriminate mixing of the sexes is incredibly threatening both to men and to women. Just keep the sexes physically separate, and we would trivially avoid the horror story that is now unfolding.

Why must we draw battle lines on the grounds of gender? — Possibility

In fact, men do not want to draw battle lines between men and women. It is just that people are misguided and even foolhardy. Instead of admitting the problem, they will just double down on the indiscriminate mixing of the sexes. They'd rather burn down the place down to the ground than to admit that they are wrong.

particularly those of a sexual or romantic nature — Possibility

Dating has turned out to become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: Tinder hookups. In the greater light of things, arranging marriages make so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy. They will never admit that they are wrong. The entire thing will have to crash and burn first, and even then they will insist that they still know better. I have already moved on, and moved elsewhere, because I am absolutely sure that the problem cannot be solved.

Well, if a woman starts black mouthing you and even spreading outright lies about you, it can be very damaging to your reputation as a man. — alcontali

And vice versa. So what? Is this ‘reputation as a man’ going to affect anything except your ability to get laid?

These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you. — alcontali

One should not have to trade sex for opportunities in the film industry OR in the office. Are you suggesting that women simply limit their potential to careers where there are no men? Better safe than sorry? Segregation is not the way towards peaceful co-existence. Surely we’ve realised this by now...

So what? Is this ‘reputation as a man’ going to affect anything except your ability to get laid? — Possibility

Well no, it may even land you in jail.

One should not have to trade sex for opportunities in the film industry OR in the office. — Possibility

I do not think that aspiring actresses necessarily care much about that. If she is not attached, and not a virgin either, her price can drop very low. In fact, that phenomenon is not even limited to actresses. If she is thirsty, she may even do it for a glass of water; or if she is hungry, trade it for a hamburger. There is no bottom to the price, actually. For quite a few women, sex is just a tool that they happily monetize, and not necessarily for much money. Weinstein merely decided that they could bring it on. It wasn't strictly necessary to give him sex, for the actress to get the gig -- she would probably also have gotten it without -- but her price was generally, probably even lower than that. If she gives it away for free, just an hour after meeting someone in a bar, why not use it to appease a guy who picks candidates for acting gigs? She would obviously be getting more out of letting Weinstein have his way, than out of the guy from the bar, who would not even buy her a coffee in the morning. With the guy from the bar, she is probably the one paying for the condom, while Weinstein would surely allow her to put it on her expense note.

I think that, in the West, men increasingly distrust women and do not believe a word they say. — IvoryBlackBishop

Just the incels and psychopaths.

That wasn't my assertion, no; that was me replying to Alcontali's post.

I don't totally disagree with what you said. I find that the entire thing is just manufacturing of pure sensationalist clickbait nonsense based on the absolute dumbest gender clichés and stereotypes known to man and woman kind.

You see, Weinstein is undoubtedly an arsehole, just like pretty much anybody who has the power to recruit or reject aspiring actresses. Power corrupts. It is so obvious that he could extract sex out of these girls, in exchange for some vague promises. Still, it takes two to tango. These candidates could also have picked something else to do, instead of pursuing a career in which they would incessantly have to trade sex for opportunities. You can see the same phenomenon at the office. Sex is a powerful tool to convince the boss to promote you or just not to fire you.

Sorry, I'll never be sympathetic with this; a "rich" fellow like Weinstein or others caught in sex scandals obviously had enough money that even if they were too ugly and repellant to attract female attention spontaneously, could, at very least have spent all of the money they wanted to on prostitutes.

So, to lower themselves to such an inferior level as to make inappropriate advances at women, is really quite sad and pathetic, even more so in the case of ones who are so evolutionarily and otherwise worthless that they stooped to molesting little girls or boys.

I do not think that aspiring actresses necessarily care much about that. If she is not attached, and not a virgin either, her price can drop very low. In fact, that phenomenon is not even limited to actresses. If she is thirsty, she may even do it for a glass of water; or if she is hungry, trade it for a hamburger. There is no bottom to the price, actually. — alcontali

This is based on your in-depth understanding of how women think and what they care about - or just on your wounded ego? Your understanding of women is clearly limited to media portrayal and the gripes of insecure men and wounded egos. It seems clear to me that you know absolutely zero about real women, and that you’ve narrowly escaped the incel culture in the West by seeking a niche where you can conceal your disrespect and direct your hatred towards ‘Western culture’, when what you really hate is how you saw yourself.

Most women would see your insincerity and contempt from a mile away.

This is based on your in-depth understanding of how women think and what they care about - or just on your wounded ego? — Possibility

Ha aha ah ;-) That is the "who hurt you?" argument. Youtube is full of funny videos on that subject!

It seems clear to me that you know absolutely zero about real women — Possibility

I will ask my wife. Maybe she agrees! ;-)

you’ve narrowly escaped the incel culture in the West — Possibility

The qualification "narrowly" is a bit of a stretch, given the fact that it takes less than $100 to fly out of the West to places where there is no "incel culture".

The problem of the incels is probably a bit different.

First of all, they may be a bit too feminized by their single-mother family background and the public-school indoctrination camps to do well, even in other areas of the world. According to the red-pill philosophy, "woke" men, i.e. "white knights" are thoroughly and universally disliked by women. In that view, if a man buys into the feminist ideology, he will probably have to forsake sexual relationships. Incels are deemed to be men who believe the falsehoods that (western) women say about themselves, and who therefore fail at achieving anything.

In that sense, if a man wants sexual relationships, he must first start by never believing a word that women say. The key to success in that realm is a healthy distrust and disbelief.

seeking a niche where you can conceal your disrespect and direct your hatred towards ‘Western culture’ — Possibility

That is probably a gross oversimplification. These other non-western cultures are highly skeptical of the western one. If you want to fit in here, you must reject many western ideas, especially, in the realm of inter-gender dynamics. If you don't, the locals will end up despising you.

when what you really hate is how you saw yourself — Possibility

Well, not really. Your SMV (Sexual-Market Value) is a very local thing. It is different in different circumstances and in different places in the world.

For example, there are lots of western men who have a relatively low SMV back home, and who do incredibly well here. Just to give you one example, a man who is short, will not do particularly well in Europe or the USA, while his shorter stature is absolutely no problem in SE Asia, as he may even be taller than the average here. Some of these shorter guys can actually even be seen binging here ... ;-)

Furthermore, making a decent living is at a premium in many areas in the world. So, unlike in the West, potentially being a good provider is something that even the younger women quickly notice outside the West. People's priorities are different in different circumstances. Just don't be feminized as a man, i.e. "blue-pilled" in red-pill lingo, because that simply does not work anywhere in the world.

Most women would see your insincerity and contempt from a mile away. — Possibility

Well, there is the well-known phenomenon of the "bad boys", who apparently do really well with women. Part of the secret is: never give anybody a higher status than they truly deserve. High-value female candidates are staunchly chaste. They carefully protect their integrity. On the other hand, if you simply know that she is just trash, then treat her accordingly. I can certainly be sincerely contemptuous when that is my opinion. Why not? Apparently, these women even prefer it like that! ;-)

Furthermore, outside the West, it is certainly not about "most" women. The ones deserving of contempt are just a relatively small minority elsewhere.

a "rich" fellow like Weinstein — IvoryBlackBishop

It is not his wealth that did it. It is his position.

Even a simple nightclub bouncer has that power. He can let people in or refuse them entry. You will immediately notice that there are girls who will offer sex in exchange for his favours. That is why even bouncers have an endless stream of trysts with these silly girls.

Even staff at an HR department can do that. He regularly interviews women. He calls the ones that he fancies over the phone to meet him privately. He does not even need to promise the woman that she will get hired. The simple fact that being on good terms with him could possibly help her getting hired, is enough for lots of women to offer sex to him.

As I have said before, the price of sex can drop very low for a non-attached non-virgin. What does it cost her anyway? So, she could do it for only half a vague promise, or so. The consideration that "I want to get along with this guy" could actually be enough already.

All you need to be, is some gatekeeper of sorts to a resource, and then you can easily turn that into an endless stream of sex.

others caught in sex scandals obviously had enough money — IvoryBlackBishop

Money is actually more difficult to use in order to get sex.

It costs lots of money just to show that you have lots of money. Furthermore, if you do that, you will first and foremost attract women who are specialized in resource extraction. Hence, it is not necessarily a good strategy. It is certainly an expensive one.

So, no, if you want a stream of endless sex, set up or buy even a small modelling agency, or so. Select the girls who will get modelling gigs and the ones who won't. That will get you going. You can be the most ugly man in the world, but you will still end up with enormous amounts of sex with otherwise pretty girls.

if they were too ugly and repellant to attract female attention spontaneously — IvoryBlackBishop

That probably does not even exist. With just a little bit of power, that man will not be too ugly or repellent. If you deal with sales representatives to figure out what your company will be buying, some of these female sales reps will spontaneously offer sex for you to buy her stuff. She won't care if you are ugly. She wants to close the sale in order to keep her job and make some commission. Sex can be very, very cheap ...

could, at very least have spent all of the money they wanted to on prostitutes — IvoryBlackBishop

Professional prostitutes are relatively expensive and even cumbersome in comparison. The cheapest sex is with women who use sex as a cheap tool to achieve something else.

So, to lower themselves to such an inferior level as to make inappropriate advances at women, is really quite sad and pathetic — IvoryBlackBishop

It is the women themselves who were making the advances. Weinstein didn't have to lift a finger for that to happen. All he did, was sitting in that chair, with his fat belly and ugly grin, selecting female candidates for actressing gigs. He could have been farting the most stinking winds while he was doing that, it would not have made a difference. The woman would have ignored it and still have had sex with him on the spot.

Ha aha ah ;-) That is the "who hurt you?" argument. Youtube is full of funny videos on that subject!

It's full of videos on Minecraft and My Little Pony as well. As an "alpha" man, it's... interesting to see that you consider random YouTube videos to be your primary source of information on things.

I will ask my wife. Maybe she agrees! ;-)

Why not just ask your wife's boyfriend instead?

But in serious, you now seem a bit contradictory; as far as evolutionary psychology goes which seems to be what you're deferring things to, almost any man or woman can meet the bare minimum qualifications to "get married", albeit with many possible varying degrees of dysfunctionality and pragmatics at stake.

So, no, if you're holding up "being married" to "some random woman" as an "ideal", that says very little of your supposed 'alpha' credentials, since an "alpha" would be focusing on higher quality marriage or relationships, not holding up "being married" at all as major accomplishment, if "trash TV" such as Jerry Springer and Maury is any indicator. It wouldn't shock me if your wife wears the pants in that relationship, not to mention how contradictory this is to much of the so-called "red pill" advice that advises against getting married at all, at least legally or formally.

I've had about 15-20 partners off and on, and where I'm at in life right now, I'm much happier to not be married, and not because of any "marriage nihilism" specifically. (If anything my nihilism is directed at the immaturity and idiocy of others and how little they value their marriages or achieving anything akin to a healthy marital foundation to begin with, no matter what century's laws or definitions of marriage one wishes to invoke).

The qualification "narrowly" is a bit of a stretch, given the fact that it takes less than $100 to fly out of the West to places where there is no "incel culture".

What I heard is that there is an "incel subculture" in East Asia or Japan, which is where all of the childish stereotypes and jokes about single men masturbating to "waifu pillows" come from. In fact, I almost thought the whole thing originated in "Japan" and made it way to the west like a badly translated anime cartoon series.

First of all, they may be a bit too feminized by their single-mother family background and the public-school indoctrination camps to do well, even in other areas of the world.

You've failed to substantiate what you mean by "public" school indoctrination camps, or why the same phenomina wouldn't exist in "private" school, "home" school, or any other K-12 oriented scholastic setting.

If by that, you mean co-ed education, then yes, coed education exists in private and "religious" schools as well, so this just sounds like empty, histrionic rhetoric, predicated on sensationalism and disproportionate reporting of unlikely events, usually if not always predicated on pandering to the stupidest phobias, insecurities, and infantile dinosaur sentiments and stereotypes imaginable, to the point that it's almost laughable that anyone outside of a Cartoon Network show or "Idiocracy" character could ever, or even have ever believed this nonsense to begin with.

As far as "doing well in other areas of the world", you used an Einstein quote several times; I find that ironic, since apparently you think that Einstein wasted his time on his intellectual endeavors, and ignored more productive life pursuits, such as dropping out of college, and fathering 10 babies with 10 different baby momma's by age 18.

According to the red-pill philosophy, "woke" men, i.e. "white knights" are thoroughly and universally disliked by women.

I'm glad that you defer yourself to what random Youtubers, many of them likely virgins, invoking a philosophy which is just a poor mans pop version of Frederick Nietzschean existentialism.

In that view, if a man buys into the feminist ideology, he will probably have to forsake sexual relationships.

You're going to need to define what you mean by "feminist ideology".

If you're mean some kind of radical feminism, a la Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas (e.x. all sex is rape or "exploitation"), then that's basically what the "incels" or "MGTOW" or whatever they're called is, just radical anti-sexual feminism for men, so I suppose that's a given.

But sans that, either give specifics in regards to what you call "feminist ideology" or please stop wasting valuable time saying the same histrionic things over and over.

You're married guy who spends all your time watching YouTube videos and posting on philosophy forums, and bragging about being married to some plain Jane as though it's an actual accomplishment, sounds like the spitting definition of "white knight" to me.

Incels are deemed to be men who believe the falsehoods that (western) women say about themselves,

1. What falsehoods, and what makes them falsehoods without circular reasoning?

2. Why do you keep repeating the myth that only "Western" women do this and say that? Everything you've been shown, so far, as far as history is concerned when your romanticism for "non-Western" countries has been removed doesn't stand up to snuff or sound historical interpretation.

Much as much of what you're calling "feminism" has more to do with stereotypical, ubiquitous aspects of human nature which have always been around in some form or variety or another, whether or not there is or was anything specifically called "feminism", which marital or relational dysfunctions being documented in many ancient texts, whether the Bible, ancient Roman theater, or anything else.

and who therefore fail at achieving anything.

I don't believe that is the problem with "incels" no.

I've met guys who were into things as stereotypically dorky as "Brony" fandom, and managed to "get laid" with someone who had a similar interest, much as how many of the fellows to which your 'male feminist' stereotype applies are "married", albeit in many cases dysfunctional, and they or their wife sadly not taking rightful advantage of no-fault divorce laws; misery loves company, so I suppose some people would rather be miserably married than "alone", something again having no inherent relation to "feminism".

The primary problem with "incels" that I've heard or seen is that they are disturbed and primarily obsessed with "celebrity women", or stereotypically "hot chicks", sometimes in an almost John Hinkley Jr. like fashion.

Much as there is nothing remotely original or insightful about your "white knight" stereotypes, or the documented notion or phenomena of being "nice" in an unhealthy OCD or "legalistic" way either, it's been documented by many authors on psychology (e.x. No More Mr. Nice Guy).

Even then, if you were using this to advocate some type of moral nihilism, well according to you - you're a married guy who posts on a philosophy forum and watches YouTube videos, you are not a gangster, a rapist, or any of the "feral" masculinity you fantasize about (which, even more ironically, runs completely contradictory to your statements about "traditionalism", as you could easily argue that "religion", rather than or in addition to "feminism" makes men "effeminate" by encouraging "Western" notions such as chastity, marriage, committed relationships, instead of that 'feral', antisocial masculinity that you romanticize from the mobster movies or GTA video games that you play.

(Similar to how you complain about "divorce" rape, when most of the current, un-updated laws in relation to marriage or "divorce" are legal holdovers from the 19th century, predicated on stereotypes or assumptions about men being the sole or main income provider, and women working full-time jobs or careers being less common, so in many ways, that is more of a case of "traditionalism" or archaic "legalism" at work, rather than feminism).

So no, so far you've only demonstrated a long, incoherent rant predicated on irrationality and inconsistencies, which doesn't hold up to snuff.

It is not his wealth that did it. It is his position.

Even a simple nightclub bouncer has that power. He can let people in or refuse them entry. You will immediately notice that there are girls who will offer sex in exchange for his favours. That is why even bouncers have an endless stream of trysts with these silly girls.

I don't believe you've done any of this, you're just repeating various 'stories' you've heard or been told (with varying degrees of accuracy or authenticity).

Regardless, your correlation of "alpha" with "having money" seems rather flawed; for example, a pro-athlete like Tom Brady, or a male boy band singer like Justin Bieber would have many women wanting to 'have sex' with him for free.

While someone like... err Bill Gates has more money than the entirety of Hollywood combined, but is not typically regarded as a "sex symbol".

My personal experience is that I've never had "a lot of money", I've had a few gigs which "payed well" in the short term, but that's about it; I've had between 15-20 partners, most of them were fairly 'hot', I did not spend much money on any one of them; some of them were married or dating (but I didn't know about this until after the fact or ever attempt to get with a woman I knew was already with a man). I even had had 1 or 2 women offer me sex for free.

Your conflation of money with "alpha" also renders all of your "incel/male feminist" rhetoric irrelevant, since who cares if a guy is a "male feminist" or "white knight"; if he just "makes enough money" he can have access to all of the hookers or potential trophy wives he wants.

It is the women themselves who were making the advances. Weinstein didn't have to lift a finger for that to happen.

You have no reason to believe this unilaterally, beyond just blind assumption reinforced by confirmation bias. Anymore than whatever strain of 'radical feminism' or what not believes any and all nonsense accusations simply because he was a "man" (courts and the court processes were designed with the rightful purpose and intent of filtering out irrelevant nobodies, gossip mongers, and otherwise socially irrelevant vermin like the above, in favor of rationality and formal procedure, which is why I am glad for them and their existence).

As far as idiots and silly irrelevant gossipers hocking whatever little opinion they want to for whatever childish reason they want to, or taking bets on court cases like it's a game of Survivor, I tend to ignore them and defer them and their worthless, inane little opining to the 'irrelevant' bucket and read about the details of the actual court cases.

All he did, was sitting in that chair, with his fat belly and ugly grin, selecting female candidates for actressing gigs. He could have been farting the most stinking winds while he was doing that, it would not have made a difference. The woman would have ignored it and still have had sex with him on the spot.

Which ones?

Dating has turned out to become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: Tinder hookups. In the greater light of things, arranging marriages make so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy. They will never admit that they are wrong.

Allowing low-status men to marry has become a complete nightmare. It wasn't a good idea in the first place, but look at what it has degenerated into: grown men watching "red pill" YouTube videos and posting fantasies about the "mafia" and virile "antisocial" masculinity which come more from Grand Theft Auto video games than any real life experience.

In the greater light of things, letting the king just castrate low-status males like alcontali and forcing eunuch to serve in the Haram, rather than wasting precious bandwidth posting on "red pill / Incel / Mgtow" forums makes so much more sense. Still, people are foolhardy; they will never admit that they are wrong.

You see, I never say that kind of things, because I am very aware of how dangerous it is to do that. In your case, I am sure that you will discover that too ... one day or the other! ;-) — alcontali

Not unless I move to a Muslim country; now go ask your wife's boyfriend.

Not unless I move to a Muslim country — IvoryBlackBishop

There are no "Muslim countries". There are only Muslim neighbourhoods and then the overall Ummah, i.e. the global Muslim congregation. Even the Ottoman empire was not a so-called "Muslim country". There were three congregations organized in the Ottoman empire: Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. There may be Muslim-majority countries, but I do not necessarily find them more pleasant, because none of them really exudes the old Ottoman atmosphere of "One Thousand and One Nights".

now go ask your wife's boyfriend. — IvoryBlackBishop

You really want 80 lashes, don't you? ;-)

If you plead that you are only a slave, and they believe you, then the lashing will be reduced to just 40. ;-)

I would love to watch that: 80 vigorously administered lashes. Remember Michael Fay? He got four strokes of the cane in Singapore. If you keep saying that kind of things to random people then one day or the other you will be able to say hello on my behalf to the vigilante who will lash your butt to smithereens! ;-)

(By the way, is that the reason why half your butt is already gone?)

Back to the main topic, I'd argue that holistic depictions of love and sex are superior to reductive or 'atomistic' depictions, which are primarily the result of hideous and inferior marketing fads, devoid of any deeper art or beauty, such as depicted in the Kama Sutra or meaningful erotic art as distinct from 'pornography' (pretentious as this may sound, lol...).

Back to the discussion now that alcontali is out:

With anecdotal evidence, you can "prove" whatever you want. I am talking about society in general.

Anecdotal evidence is, in most if not all ways, superior to other forms of evidence, such as inferior so-called "empirical" evidence, or what is often so erroneously claimed to be such, or based on such, by many, if not most, particularily ignorant members of uneducated or undereducated "masses".

[quote[
And there are real, very demonstrable and very obvious differences between genders and age groups. In human society. Which really should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology.
[/quote]
Unless you can provide some actual context in which the differences matter or are practically relevant beyond pure speculation or 'folk wisdom', as far as society in general goes, rather than just stating that the differences "exist" in a vaccum without understanding what that actually means, in theory or practice, I'm not particularly interested.

As far as your other claims, like I said, I've heard people make both kinds of claims, whether it's you claiming education is "girl-oriented", or claims that it is "boy-oriented" due to its emphasis on mathematics, and a presumably inferiority in that area on the part of girls or women due to testosterone's positive correlation with higher level mathematical and spatial reasoning ability.

Regardless of this, I'd say it's not practical reason to discriminate against a girl or a woman who is a mathematician or a chess player, which is why anecdotal evidence, in this regard, is superior as far as a holistic view on human nature is concerned, as opposed to merely stating the "existence" of the differences as though to win an argument, or to ignore or discriminate against those to whom the "differences" don't actually apply in practice.

Regarding your claims about "incels", I'm curious and wondering?

How does one prove that they or someone else is an "incel" to begin with? How many girls do they have to ask on a date, or attempt to 'seduce' and get rejected by in order for them to qualify as an "incel"?

Are they 'hitting on' girls or women with... similar interests or life goals, whether we are talking anime, Minecraft, webcomics about fascist frogs, Pokémon, "My Little Pony fandom", or anything else stereotypically 'nerdy' or 'unpopular', or are they hitting on the top 10% of the world's hottest chicks, a la John Hinckly Jr. or some other self-styled "gentleman" who thinks Taylor Swift is entitled to date him because he's "nice" or something aesthetically repellant like that?

if they are simply motivated by "sex", have the attempted to go "gay", and if they refuse simply because of preference for a woman, does that still make them an "incel"?

Please elaborate, I refuse to associate with them or their so-called "communities" beyond mere voyeuristic curiosity, given that I don't think my aesthetic and cultural sense could stomach it; particularily if we are talking about 50+ year old man children with a serious case of arrested development or maturity, rather than merely angsty tweens who got rejected by their HS crush.

In what little contact I had the misfortune of making with those of said depraved and archaic mindsets and aesthetic defectiveness and attempting to make sense of the logic or rational behind their disaffected "worldview' or "perspective", I attempted to talk about of common sense or rationality to them, but I personally find that most of them are too dysfunctional to help, at least for a wannabe "good Samaritan" like me, and their worldview is predicated on the breeding of disaffectedness and complete lack of self awareness, or even basic economic sense as much as what the so-called "red pill" economics' axioms are based or predicated on to begin with.

Then again, from what I've seen, the "average" mediocrly married, if not outright miserably married and pending to become yet another of the 50% divorce rate statistics, were simple pragmatics not a dissuading favor in it, doesn't have any particularly good 'advice', intuition, or 'insight' about the matter either, particularly when anything relating to the term "feminism" in all of its ambiguous and inconsistent uses is discussed or brought up by men or women of either "side" or camp, with some degree of 'griping', resentment, or 'misunderstanding' of the other sex seeming to be quite ubiquitous, if not 'perennial', given that apparently the same types of gripes and complaints, and marital spats or quarrels have been documented since ancient history, per Plato and other thinkers.

On this, any universal worldview which is essentially nihilism about "the other sex" or relationships, boyfriends, girlfriends, fiancés, marriage in general, I rejected; I believe that some people are married or couples who are "happy" enough without it degenerating into something akin to "Jerry Springer" or "Maury" material, but realistically some people may simply not, at least where they are in life, be cut out for marriage, let alone children, whether one wishes to reference St. Paul or any other thinker or author on the topic, along with the "delusion" that any marriage is "perfect", which to me, at least if one has any level of common sense, or has read anything akin to mature marriage or relationship advice from any era under the sun, would know or pick up on without any silly and hyperbolic "red pill" paranoid required, unless they are incredibly naïve or ignorant, most likely willfully.

Regarding your claims about "incels", I'm curious and wondering?
How does one prove that they or someone else is an "incel" to begin with? How many girls do they have to ask on a date, or attempt to 'seduce' and get rejected by in order for them to qualify as an "incel"? — IvoryBlackBishop

This is not about individual situations, this about society in general. The vast majority of young males are heterosexual and are thus looking for females. With a general 50/50 male/female ration that generally works out.
Now if you have large surplus of males, you inevitably have a number of young males looking for females but unable to find one... thus, incels.

That there any number of indivial situations is a given... I am not talking about that. I was talking about society as whole. So hard to understand?

As far as your other claims, like I said, I've heard people make both kinds of claims, whether it's you claiming education is "girl-oriented", or claims that it is "boy-oriented" due to its emphasis on mathematics, and a presumably inferiority in that area on the part of girls or women due to testosterone's positive correlation with higher level mathematical and spatial reasoning ability. — IvoryBlackBishop

Actually, you brought up mathematics, not I. And yes, education is increasingly girl-oriented to the detriment of boys. This is about the learning environment, not about the choice of topics. You might want to check out Jonathan Haidt, who has researched this extensively. Also you might want to read the paper that got James Damore fired from Google for addressing exactly the same issue (in regard to work environment at Google, not at schools, but it is the same issue).

This is not about individual situations, this about society in general. The vast majority of young males are heterosexual and are thus looking for females. With a general 50/50 male/female ration that generally works out.
Now if you have large surplus of males, you inevitably have a number of young males looking for females but unable to find one... thus, incels.

That there any number of indivial situations is a given... I am not talking about that. I was talking about society as whole. So hard to understand? — Nobeernolife

No, I don't understand.

What are you saying, society in general has a "surplus" of males? Or that every young man (or woman) has no life goals or priorities beyond sex, masturbation, and pornography, and can't so much as find something akin to a productive hobby or life goal?

Nor do I understand any rational reason why a person would "identify" or fame themselves on the basis of how much "sex" they're getting (or not), unless they're a severely emotionally stunted individual with nothing akin to any meaningful goals, hobbies, values, life priorities, and so on.

If you want me to be "sympathetic" to some imagined and self-entitled "plight" which to me is more narcissism than anything else, I'm not particularly inclined to be, no. I've been with enough women that the adolescent thrill of 'hooking up' or 'getting laid' is gone, and a 'hedonistic' worldview in which all of life's meaning is reduced to "sex", or even "marriage", isn't particularly appealing, much as my observation has been that in happily married, as opposed to mediocrely-miserably married couples, marriage or relationships are just a part of an otherwise well-rounded and fulfilled live, not life's so end in and of itself.

Actually, you brought up mathematics, not I. And yes, education is increasingly girl-oriented to the detriment of boys. This is about the learning environment, not about the choice of topics. You might want to check out Jonathan Haidt, who has researched this extensively. Also you might want to read the paper that got James Damore fired from Google for addressing exactly the same issue (in regard to work environment at Google, not at schools, but it is the same issue).

If you're talking about K-12 education, my opinion is that given that the "bare minimum" level one will attain from this education is ultimately not very significant, given that it's oriented toward an average 100 IQ and 6th grade reading level, I find many of the claims histrionic, especially in regards to people pursuing self-learning higher level education or career pursuits and so on.

Overall, my opinion of it as a whole is not particularly good to begin with, nor are the experiences of young people reducible to what they learn (or don't learn) in K-12, given that a variety of other factors such as family, parents, culture, media, peers, the person themselves will ultimately play a huge role on their development.

No, I don't understand.
What are you saying, society in general has a "surplus" of males? — IvoryBlackBishop

I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
Same applies for a society with selective abortion of female babies (i.e. China with its 1 child policy).
These are simple demographic facts.

Nor do I understand any rational reason why a person would "identify" or fame themselves on the basis of how much "sex" they're getting (or not), — IvoryBlackBishop

I am not talking about how anyone "identifies" themselves, I am talking about simple biological facts.

I said "if". It depends on the society. For example, in a society that practises polygamy, by defintion there is a surplus of incels.
[/quote]

If your making these assumptions on the bases of hypothetical "warrior" societies, then it's probable that male death rate is much higher than average, which might help to "even things out" a bit.

Same applies for a society with selective abortion of female babies (i.e. China with its 1 child policy). These are simple demographic facts.

I believe you've failed to use these "facts" in anyway which resembles a meaningful point you are trying to make.

Especially when the "incel" cult or subculture seems to be more delusional or "pride" focused (e.x. obsessing over stereotypically "hot chicks" with a media following), and not simply attempting to "get laid" or "get a girlfriend" with something akin to similar 'common interests' such as theirs.

Ultimately, I am not inclined to be very sympathetic; life is not all about "sex", and the type of men who would be able to date a "hot celebrity chick" like Taylor Swift or Angelina Jolie are a very small minority to begin with, most people, at least on some level manage to cope with this reality and realization, if they can't or won't because of their psychopathy and lack of anything resembling a margin of self-awareness, that, is ultimately on them.

Not to mention the realties that "marriage" even for people who invest their time in getting married or starting a family is far from a "walk in the park", with many couples ending up miserably married or quite less "happy" than the begin ideals, to the point that some even regret getting married after the fact, so obviously the psychological dysfunctions with "incels" are likely on a much more and deeper level, and not something that can simply or be easily resolved through their ridiculous and/or absurd "solutions", such as demanding that governments 'subsidize hookers" for them or whatnot.

---
And as far as "population rates", ignoring the crap above, you've yet to substantiate when and why they are relevant, or how much "population" any given nation or society needs to begin with.

So-called "whites" and English-speaking peoples are already a "minority" globally, compared to China and India's populations; nor does everything which currently "is" necessarily even need "replacement", and in some cases would likely be better off just to die and disappear on its own accord. So on this, again what is the point you're trying to make?

If your making these assumptions on the bases of hypothetical "warrior" societies, then it's probable that male death rate is much higher than average, which might help to "even things out" a bit. — IvoryBlackBishop

I was simply stating a demographic fact. But yes, you are correct; polygamy is suitable for a warrior society by producing lots of disposable and aggressive incels. Which is what I pointed out earlier... glad you finally got it.

Ultimately, I am not inclined to be very sympathetic; life is not all about "sex", and the type of men who would be able to date a "hot celebrity chick" l — IvoryBlackBishop

Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.

So-called "whites" and English-speaking peoples are already a "minority" globally, compared to China and India's populations; nor does everything which currently "is" necessarily even need "replacement", — IvoryBlackBishop

I said nothing about "whites" and "English speaking people", why do keep changing the topic? When you replace one population with a different one, you get a different society, that applies everywher. I.e. when China replaces Tibetan and Uigur populations with Han Chinese populations, the societies of Tibet and Xinyian change drastically. Again, I am simply stating a fact --- I don´t know what you do not understand or disagree with here.

You're not making any point.

1. You haven't lived in a "warrior society", and I suspect that much of this is over-romanticized in media and popular folk wisdom (there is a serious book on the subject of "violence" and actual violent combat by Rory Miller if you are interested).

My understanding is that any "elite warrior" no matter which "society" you're talking about was always a minority, and not the "average" man at all, much as how men (or women) who have served in live combat or special forces are not the "average" person, nor even the average officer or enlisted in US or other modern militaries; with "most" men and women having comparatively "average" jobs.

Not to mention, 1st world countries are not "polygamous" at least as far as law and social institutions and philosophies go; unless you count "hooking up" or "casual" sex as "polygamous" or "polyamorous"), which seems to be a civilizational philosophy and phenomena not necessarily exclusive to any specifically "religious" institution or phenomena.

2. You again seem to reduce the "Incel" phenomina solely to a "sexual" thing, as opposed to a psychological or character thing.

Or view the proposal that they do something remotely productive with their life other than obsess over women who think they're creepy, as totally out of the question.

Sex is part of life, and how different societies address it has a big role in shaping them.
[/quote]

The reality is that there are couples who married who "get tired" of having sex; much as there are notable men and women historically, who in practice may have never married, and actually found other endeavors, such as life, career or intellectual pursuits more satisfying (Newton and Adam Smith immediately come to mind).

I said nothing about "whites" and "English speaking people", why do keep changing the topic? When you replace one population with a different one, you get a different society, that applies everywher. I.e. when China replaces Tibetan and Uigur populations with Han Chinese populations, the societies of Tibet and Xinyian change drastically. Again, I am simply stating a fact --- I don´t know what you do not understand or disagree with here.

And what's your point, and how would the number of birth rates have anything to do with it?

Whether or not the USA's population number stayed the same, or dropped by 1/2, it would be a different "society" regardless.

Likewise, any cohesive attempt at defining at what point any society or nation "begins" or "ends" to begin with has yet to be done (e.x. a nation called "China" exists today, but obviously it is not considered the same "China" as Ming Dynasty China).

The very nature of the physical world is atrophy. Everything naturally is losing inertia. The only thing keeping the whole thing going is new growth. Sex is the same. Of course married couples will get bored of sex, thats the whole point especially when they are past child bearing age. Why would life waste its time encouraging them to have sex. That is, unless they are creative or love each other before themselves. Instead couples like this are given an even better opportunity. If you love someone only because you like having sex with them, atrophy is going to help you split up one day, or lead separate lives, or just hate each other. However, if you move beyond the animal instincts of sex drive, take control of your urges, then you will have something more valuable.

If we imagined that prople are so full of hate that the hate in them makes them so ugly, so utterly unlovable, no matter how much makeup they put on, that nobody wants to have sex with them. Would that actaully make sense. Why propagate a gene set that is completely out of balance. By natural selection (ie no one would touch them even with yours) then there is a benefit to the overall genepool.

So when someone goes looking for a match, a partner, are they looking for something that looks good stood next to them or do they want someone that loves them. Whatever you look for you will find, but don't be fooled, like a peacock fluffs up its feathers, so do people fluff up their appearance. But whether you match or not is usually decided when you communicate, not by a picture of what they look like. Dont judge a book by its cover.

The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.

The Dissintergration of many a society happened as a result of the lewd decline into sexual depravity. The Romans had their orgies, the Ancient Greek man liked to have sex with young boys, they also like to kill babies if they didnt look normal and parade naked in the streets (check out the meaning of a gymnasium), and in our society today, we have Tinder, Grinder and Dogging. Oh and internet pornography, oh and 2 girls 1 cup. Oh and human slavery for the purposes of sex working. And organised paedophile rings. There may be more I cant think of.

My focus, of late isn't specifically on "sex" so much as fatuous consumerism in general, it merely being a waste of life, but my earnest belief now is that in most time periods, people determined to do so found ways to 'waste' theirs and others lives', and find ways to be miserable even when they didn't or don't have to.

Nothing "fascist" about it, just reality and common sense, unless one things that being against pedophilia makes you a "fascist", and if so, they don't deserve to live to begin with, let alone have an opinion on that, or anything else.