Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Clint Eastwood said in the character of Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations." When talking about relationships, the old Italian ladies used to say there's a cover for every pot.
Instead of comparing yourself to a dazzling handsome guy who has had 200 women, a man has got to know his place in the social order. After a few visits to clubs and striking out with the gorgeous barbie dolls I figured out quickly that this was not the pool for me to fish in. Although I was in college I had mixed success with coeds. I figured out my pool was with high school graduate working girls, secretaries, clerks, telephone reps. I didn't have to impress these girls, just dress nice, smell nice, be nice, spend some money, show them a good time. It was easy. With these girls I was boyfriend material. With the barbies I was like crap on their shoes, with the coeds I was maybe yes, maybe no, uh, maybe not.
As far as sex goes, it wasn't hard to get some kind of sex, maybe intercourse, maybe just heavy petting to orgasm. All these girls wanted it as much as I did. They were down to earth, wanted a good time too, knew which end was up. Everyone claimed "they weren't looking to get serious" whether it was true or not. You kept it light and had fun while getting to know the person.
I realize it's a whole different world today. As bizarre as the 60's were, every guy I knew did OK. Almost every girl I knew did OK. If things didn't work out with someone you jumped back in the game. And if you found love, it was the jackpot. But dating for fun had to do until love came along. But I think the fundamentals still apply.
*Please read this through there is no malice in my post just some perspective of an older male*
Women in their 20's especially and even into their thirties have this sort of warped view because they've been chased for a long time. Fast forward into 40's and 50's and....the better catch guys their age are hip deep (literally) into women 10+ years younger. (results may vary, please this is only general commentary I really don't want to hear an anecdotal rebuttal about some exception)
So, if you're going to mock the incels it turns into a rather ugly hypocritical situation where 20-30 years later....well a lot of gals become the "incels" or rather bitter about how men want young women etc. etc. etc. story as old as time.
I am acutely aware of this as went through highschool with plenty of gf choices, probably an 8/10 or so....then went bald early...found myself in my early 20's as a 3/10 (didn't date much) then got in great shape in my late 30s and became a 9/10 where a ripped shaved headed guy was attractive to that age group but not younger.
In short, if you're going to casually insult folks with the term "incel" then embrace the phrase "old hag" as equally "kind" and politically correct. Maybe a little kindness and compassion is in order?
"Old Hag" is not the female equivalent of incel, as incels are often YOUNG men (late teens to early 30s) without the mental maturity, or physical attributes, communication skills, decent jobs, hygiene, empathy, etc to attract women of any age. Regardless of age, the incel of either gender tends to lack the ability to identify and improve their own shortcomings, and rather blame their lack of sexual relationships on OTHERS. In the case of male incels, I think they blame the situation on the fact that (in their opinion) women can't see them, or their value, and are ignoring them, or want some quality they don't possess (good looks, wealth, sexy body, etc), when in fact, they are actually doing the very same thing to women all the time. In general, I see it as a case of wishing to date "out of their league" and not being happy when the women they seek refuse to play their game. At the same time, when presented with a female 4/10, they don't even look at her, she doesn't exist to them as a prospect. They won't even consider a woman with short hair, a "little meat on her bones", a plain face, etc, even though they themselves might be overweight, poorly groomed, or generally lacking in normal social graces. They get turned down or, worse yet, laughed at, and then the whole misogyny thing kicks in, and if they find others to commiserate with, it becomes "them" versus "us".
An "old hag" as you put it, would simply be what used to be called a spinster (woman who has failed to marry by her expiration date) who has let herself go physically. "Old hag" has nothing to do with a desire for sex, or a hatred for men, simply age and appearance.
I know many guys who, as teens and young 20-somethings, were actually celibate not by choice, but when they matured, cleaned up their act, got their careers going, and learned some social skills, actually became in-demand and dated, married, had kids, etc. They didn't blame their problems on others, but just grew up, and the women around them grew up, and they found their counter-parts.
Last edited by TheShadow; 03-07-2022 at 10:47 AM..
As Clint Eastwood said in the character of Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations." When talking about relationships, the old Italian ladies used to say there's a cover for every pot.
Instead of comparing yourself to a dazzling handsome guy who has had 200 women, a man has got to know his place in the social order. After a few visits to clubs and striking out with the gorgeous barbie dolls I figured out quickly that this was not the pool for me to fish in. Although I was in college I had mixed success with coeds. I figured out my pool was with high school graduate working girls, secretaries, clerks, telephone reps. I didn't have to impress these girls, just dress nice, smell nice, be nice, spend some money, show them a good time. It was easy. With these girls I was boyfriend material. With the barbies I was like crap on their shoes, with the coeds I was maybe yes, maybe no, uh, maybe not.
As far as sex goes, it wasn't hard to get some kind of sex, maybe intercourse, maybe just heavy petting to orgasm. All these girls wanted it as much as I did. They were down to earth, wanted a good time too, knew which end was up.
I realize it's a whole different world today. As bizarre as the 60's were, every guy I knew did OK. Every girl I knew did OK. And if you found love, it was the jackpot. But dating for fun had to do until love came along. But I think the fundamentals still apply.
The fundamentals most definitely still apply even though the dating environment has changed over the years. It's always been a numbers and environment game; being able to determine which audience might be most receptive to what a person has on offer to potential romantic interests.
For example: For someone like my partner who, prior to his separation and subsequent divorce had last dated in the early 90s, online dating was a boon rather than a hinderance to his reentrance into the dating world as it gave him greater numbers with which to work. (He told me that it was shocking to him how easy it was to find dates and get laid post-divorce, lol.) He struck out plenty, to be sure, but he also had a heck of a good time out there (and met me in the process ).
He's no outlier, either. I think that a lot of people who seem to have consistent issues with finding people to date have unrealistic expectations (not talking about ratings or leagues, either--just unreasonable expectations and overly high entry bars) or are simply fishing in the wrong ponds (environment/physical location).
Last edited by Formerly Known As Twenty; 03-07-2022 at 10:48 AM..
I lurk and occasionally comment on a site designed to help men move away from incel thought. I don't know if it's representative of incels because these men are mostly making some effort to change. I suspect they're less hostile than men who aren't ready to attempt to change or who never will be ready.
They tend to have or be:
-External locus of control (almost all)
-Anxiety (almost all)
-Depression (maybe half)
-Autism (over represented, maybe a third to a half on the AS)
-Over representation of cluster A personality disorders (by their report and my speculation)
-A history of being bullied (most)
-On the surface innocent but distorted ideas about women and dating (some, maybe a quarter)
-Negative and distorted but not dangerous sounding ideas about women and dating (most)
-Toxic and dangerous sounding ideas (rare but loud, they don't last long)
-Asian, Indian, or Middle Eastern living in the west (over represented, maybe a quarter)
-Short stature (about half are quite short, so also over represented)
As to why there are dangerous incels, for starters men are more violent than women. There is a significantly higher rate of Autism and cluster A personality disorders among men compared to women. Autism is far more prevalent now than in the past, and while some of the increase is due to better diagnoses, that doesn't account for all. Women are underdiagnosed, but women with Autism tend to be less socially limited than men. Some of this has to do with the way women are socialized, and some to do with typical gender roles in dating.
So I believe that more men than women have significant social issues that are tough to remediate. More men have these issues than in the past. Men are more likely than women to act out violently across a whole range of issues and adding a significant level of Autism increases isolation and exacerbate things while cluster A PDs can be more directly related to erratic behavior.
About half the men on that site concern me. I'm concerned for their welfare or the welfare of those around them. They say and report doing things that are at least mildly disturbing. I'm not sure what their future holds, but I hope earlier diagnosis, better treatment and more willingness to seek treatment will help somewhat.
Men with even mild Autism or say Schizoid Personality Disorder would have struggled to date in 1922 or 1972 as much as today. Men on that site who struggle now for other reasons that are more easily dealt with will probably figure things out in a year or three or five. Ironically though, I suspect the biggest jump in older virgin men and late to start dating men are made up of this group that will eventually find a partner. I think societal changes are mostly responsible for their #s and for the particular pain they feel being among that #.
As women become less dependent on men or marriage, the rates of marriage has dropped and the age of first marriages has gone up. While some people will cohabit, later and less marriage means there there are still more people spending long periods single through their 20s. Some of those longer single men and women would have married in their 20s 50 yrs ago. Women tend to cope with being single better due to better social support from family and friends.
Although it's overemphasized, looks play a part in all of this. A man with modest looks and a more treatable but still impactful issue like moderate social anxiety will likely have a tougher time dating than a woman with the same issues. If a man's looks and even occasional quirky behavior make it almost certain that women won't approach him or send undeniable signals of interest, the same isn't likely true for a similar woman. A modest looking woman with moderate social anxiety is far more likely to have some dating options. Those options may not be great, but she's more likely to struggle with dating and relationships than to struggle to do either at all.
Add social media to the mix. Everyone is vulnerable to FOMO after indulging in too much social media, but intuitively it seems more painful to me to view social media from completely outside the fun images that permeate that medium than to be inside with a less glowing image.
As to solutions, I'm mildly hopeful about several things. The social changes that have largely freed women from dependence on men and from limited social roles will eventually help men also. I see no reason why men can't form deeper and more mutually supportive friendships with men and women, except that it's not expected of them or particularly lauded. Men can defy those limits now, but I believe that will get easier in the future. Same with therapy, taking care of his physical health, and other types of support.
Although I haven't mentioned it, a lot of what incel men believe about being a man (or woman) is a distorted version of old stereotypes straight out of Toxic Men's Rights beliefs and far right anti woman backlash bull****. I believe this stuff will be with us for a while, but I think and hope we're hearing its ugly death rattle now. For now there's a weird connection between men who use and abuse women and men who have little or no contact with women at all that I don't think will exist in a decade or two.
And men can adapt right now, without society's permission or the approval of bloviating MRA types. They can shift their perspective, change their behavior, pay more healthy attention to their appearance, and examine their expectations that don't serve them well. That's all or most of what some men need to do, and for others it's the first step they need to take before making other changes.
Edit to add;
The internet doesn't help. I suspect the mostly gone hardcore incel sites drew some men in who absent the internet of those sites would have never seen themselves as more than not terribly attractive and a bit unlucky. But forging an identity as an incel never helps, and at least slows the guy's progress toward figuring things out. Many of the men I feel will find there way felt like online communities offered them something when they were vulnerable and when seemingly no one else did, even if they knew on some level it was ****.
"Old Hag" is not the female equivalent of incel, as incels are often YOUNG men (late teens to early 30s) without the mental maturity, or physical attributes, communication skills, decent jobs, hygiene, empathy, etc to attract women of any age. Regardless of age, the incel of either gender tends to lack the ability to identify and improve their own shortcomings, and rather blame their lack of sexual relationships on OTHERS. In the case of male incels, I think they blame the situation on the fact that (in their opinion) women can't see them, or their value, and are ignoring them, or want some quality they don't possess (good looks, wealth, sexy body, etc), when in fact, they are actually doing the very same thing to women all the time. In general, I see it as a case of wishing to date "out of their league" and not being happy when the women they seek refuse to play their game. At the same time, when presented with a female 4/10, they don't even look at her, she doesn't exist to them as a prospect. They won't even consider a woman with short hair, a "little meat on her bones", a plain face, etc, even though they themselves might be overweight, poorly groomed, or generally lacking in normal social graces. They get turned down or, worse yet, laughed at, and then the whole misogyny thing kicks in, and if they find others to commiserate with, it becomes "them" versus "us".
An "old hag" as you put it, would simply be what used to be called a spinster (woman who has failed to marry by her expiration date) who has let herself go physically. "Old hag" has nothing to do with a desire for sex, or a hatred for men, simply age and appearance.
I know many guys who, as teens and young 20-somethings, were actually celibate not by choice, but when they matured, cleaned up their act, got their careers going, and learned some social skills, actually became in-demand and dated, married, had kids, etc. They didn't blame their problems on others, but just grew up, and the women around them grew up, and they found their counter-parts.
Like I said, putting aside 'wasted' time, I've personally benefited heavily from the new state of affairs in terms of exposure to sex compared to most men, so I'm not losing any sleep or wishing for revenge. I don't blame women individually or as a group for where things are, I just look at it as part of nature that has been amplified/distorted by technology. The fact is that the number of partners for average man and average woman is vastly different. It's reported as being about the same, but that's because it's self-reporting. And I do think many women will be sorry for the way things went, since from observation I believe most women do want a committed LTR, whether or not that includes marriage and picket fence. Not all but the very large majority. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, I'm not a woman. And again, I think much of the current system is better than it was before (though I do think the legal system favors women and needs to be adjusted). I'm just providing an explanation for inceldom and how it likely relates to online dating.
I give you a point regarding the legal system in particular as it relates to child custody in divorces. A man should not fear leaving an unhappy marriage because he won't get to be part of his kids' lives. As someone who in fact did navigate a divorce just 6 years ago, though, with two kids at the time...I can tell you that there is progress. But frankly, and I cannot emphasize this enough, getting a livable outcome from a divorce depends A WHOLE FREAKING LOT on the people getting divorced acting like rational and responsible adults rather than vindictive bullies, to one another. And seriously, if my ex and I of all people (it was a nasty, abusive relationship, especially at the end, involving a lot of fraught emotions) could work out the terms without lawyers or mediators and not treat it like warfare...I believe anyone can. If they choose to.
Quote:
Spork, honestly I wouldn't lose much sleep over #1.; 99% plus of men don't consider what you are describing as 'assault' or 'harassment' because in almost all cases they have the physical power to say no and walk away. Reasons a guy would turn away sex: he's in a committed relationship or believes he's about to enter one, he's concerned it's inappropriate or would ruin a friendship or social dynamic, he's concerned you like him too much more than he likes you and he doesn't want you to fall in love/go in deeper with him, he doesn't have a condom and doesn't want to risk pregnancy or STDs, he has an STD he doesn't want to give you, he's too drunk or high to get it up, he's worried you're too drunk/high relative to him, he's gay and in closet, he has a tiny weewee, or other reasons.
BS, my dude. Where is Euskallherria or whatever his name is...tell HIM that he has no reason worth taking seriously, to withhold consent to sex. Sheesh. Besides which let me tell you about my son. He was dating a girl in high school, pretty sure she had BPD, and she would say all this sweet, adoring, validating stuff one minute and turn around and tear him down the next. She was awful. They were actually pretty awful to each other, neither of them mentally well people. He was 16 or 17 at the time when this happened, and he told me about it later after they broke up. She'd spent the day just wrecking him, being vicious to him, and then she wanted sex. He did not. He didn't want anything to do with her. And she started crying and freaking out that she was ugly and fat and so on and threatened to hurt herself, so he ended up giving in and giving her what she wanted. And he felt miserable about it. Now don't you effing tell me, that he didn't have a right to say no, or that his right to say no was not violated. That whole episode is absolute crap that no one should have to deal with. And people who treat this whole thing like some mathematical evo-bio exercise disregard a whole lot of human beings and their lived experiences. It's not cool.
Quote:
But you are right on #2, that doesn't mean all we want is sex. Yes, we want to be loved, and I'd say men are just as romantic/idealistic as women if not much more so. We also want unlimited access to sex in a fantastical / idealistic sense (hence your 72 promise in Islam), but we know that isn't possible/practical, has risks, and isn't conducive to success in our monogamous society. These two things aren't mutually exclusive for a man; a man can love a woman and be physically attracted (in sort of a mechanical/raw sexual sense) to many other women, but you can't admit it in our society. But yes, most men demand faithfulness in a relationship, hence the historical trend of either monogamy or polygamy in 99% plus of societies historically, fairness notwithstanding.
You went full 'red pill' premise in the one paragraph. And a lot of the red pill stuff is roughly correct (and a lot of it is simplistic/misogynistic), i.e. the 'c*ck carousel' thing to an extent, as well as 'Alpha f*cks Beta bucks' in many instances. By attractive I just mean statistically attracting more women. Not putting any kind of value judgment there, same with the numbering system; it's an imperfect device for argumentation purposes.
I've been on Relationships subforum for over a decade. I know the lingo. You know who is really unattractive? Guys who buy into red pill crap. And they always think that women can't pick up on a vibe or know that they have a head full of toxic nonsense. I'd sooner date the ugliest man on earth if he had a healthy mindset and an enjoyable personality, than the best looking one if he talked like one of the pill crowd, or even one of the chauvinist precursors. Also, men are easily fooled by other men. Some guy talks like he's got game and you all believe him.
But the other aspect, too, is that a man who is good at fooling young, immature, unwise women... Other men see him as a success because those women are what guys always think they want, but women who have lived a little bit of life (not talking "cat ladies" or old women, but like, 25+, or not sheltered, had a chance to live and learn a little women)...we see it as predatory. And the thing is, a guy who can get those gals in the sack, may not necessarily be able to keep one around even if he wants to. Just because she doesn't know better and falls for a dude's game at age 19, doesn't mean she won't walk at age 26. And since you mentioned divorce court, I've seen more come-uppance along those lines than I have old, miserable, lonely "cat ladies" ever. Juuusst. sayin.
Quote:
So you're admitting it's against nature / would lead to the extinction of the human race if practiced everywhere. That's not a great leg to stand on. Again, I'm not saying go back to all the old ways, but some of the new ways are problematic and need to be shifted. There will be adaption and adjustment for sure, by both men and women, not just men. 'The memo' and 'the game' change by the year, and neither of us know how things will evolve.
No, I'm saying that long before this sort of nonsense will have a chance to threaten the survival of the species, we will have already done ourselves in via nukes or climate change or something. Solve those things, and THEN maybe I will worry about it. But even if it were a problem (and I'm not remotely convinced that it is) it would not be worth the subjugation of half the population and the loss of freedoms, options, and choices in life, to solve it.
Although it's overemphasized, looks play a part in all of this. A man with modest looks and a more treatable but still impactful issue like moderate social anxiety will likely have a tougher time dating than a woman with the same issues. If a man's looks and even occasional quirky behavior make it almost certain that women won't approach him or send undeniable signals of interest, the same isn't likely true for a similar woman. A modest looking woman with moderate social anxiety is far more likely to have some dating options. Those options may not be great, but she's more likely to struggle with dating and relationships than to struggle to do either at all.
This has been an aspect to this that is so damn hard to explain to incel thinking dudes.
Being a woman dating men is like skipping through a minefield. More of us can get dates, sure, but the men we can get...lots of them are not going to treat us well. Men are not competing with each other, in the eyes of many women, they are competing with our solitude.
Because it is far better to be alone, than to be with an abusive man.
But the lonely man doesn't see it this way. He sees it as, "if only I have a chance, that first chance, then I will have all of the power and control, I'll be behind the wheel, nothing could go wrong in the relationship itself, of course it would be great." But then I also see men preferring even marriages/relationships that make them miserable, over being on their own. But what does misery look like, for the average man unhappy with his marriage? Not getting enough sex. So she is harming him only by withholding a positive treat he wants.
Whereas women in bad relationships, what does that mean? Maybe she is supporting an addict or a mooch or he's beating her up or she's working herself to death while he barely lifts a finger? Most of the time, if a woman says she is in a "bad" relationship, we think she's being harmed. Good chance she is. And odds are it goes beyond him dangling a cookie out of her reach.
That's what always upset me about the difference in perception between my ex and I. He felt that his violent and threatening behavior was understandable, but me not wanting to have sex with him at least ever other day, was evil and abusive. And there are men who agree with him. That not getting the goodies he wanted out of me, made it totally understandable to act like a damn terrorist to me and our kids.
I would rather have been alone for the rest of my life.
And men who behave like absolute crap in relationships are not rare, they are not freak outliers. They are common. So that "at least you have a chance"...yeah. OK. Well, "get a partner, any partner" benefits men a whole lot more than women. More chances is not a benefit when almost all of them are worse than being alone.
No really.
Seriously.
Way too many are.
Which hey, you should definitely kinda know, those guys you talk about who say "disturbing" things...they are among our "options." Like we're supposed to be very grateful to have them.
And we often cannot know until we're in deep enough that it's hard to leave. Those guys not only do not wear a sign, they (like plenty of incels and other dudes) do not in fact SEE themselves accurately.
After having threatened me with a loaded gun, after he'd done that to his ex, after having told our child he was going to burn the house down and kill the family, and after other actual violence I don't even describe on these boards (I've never told the worst of it and never will)... My ex talks about how he was always a "nice guy" and a "good guy" who finished last.
Women don't appreciate all these "options" because we can't frickin' trust men. Ya'll are perilous. And I say that even though I have known a lot of REALLY good men, whose rights to not be presumed bad I defend, as a mother of sons, a sister to two brothers, and a wife to a wonderful man. Lots of you are amazing. I just don't know what %, and no woman ever will. And men know even less, because your best buddy who shows you the coolest, best face, could turn around and beat his wife and you might not ever know. Men really are good at fooling each other, even more I think, than they are at fooling women.
(EDITING to add... This is the only point I felt I needed to blather about, but the post you made in general, Homina, was insightful and I thank you for it. And I think that you are one of the good ones, truly, and it is very good of you to kindly try to help share your good mojo with other guys who are having a rough time.)
Last edited by Sonic_Spork; 03-07-2022 at 11:59 AM..
I give you a point regarding the legal system in particular as it relates to child custody in divorces. A man should not fear leaving an unhappy marriage because he won't get to be part of his kids' lives. As someone who in fact did navigate a divorce just 6 years ago, though, with two kids at the time...I can tell you that there is progress. But frankly, and I cannot emphasize this enough, getting a livable outcome from a divorce depends A WHOLE FREAKING LOT on the people getting divorced acting like rational and responsible adults rather than vindictive bullies, to one another. And seriously, if my ex and I of all people (it was a nasty, abusive relationship, especially at the end, involving a lot of fraught emotions) could work out the terms without lawyers or mediators and not treat it like warfare...I believe anyone can. If they choose to.
That may be true outside your experience as a broader trend (that things are getting better), I wouldn't know since never married/divorced, but that's not nearly good enough. Most people will take whatever the lawyer can get them and the dictator/dictatress judge will give them. The legal system needs to change, we can't count on people to act right especially in highly emotionally charged, extremely high-stakes contexts. Same reason why we need guns, security guards, and door locks, not friendly persuasion, to stop criminals.
Quote:
She'd spent the day just wrecking him, being vicious to him, and then she wanted sex. He did not. He didn't want anything to do with her. And she started crying and freaking out that she was ugly and fat and so on and threatened to hurt herself, so he ended up giving in and giving her what she wanted. And he felt miserable about it. Now don't you effing tell me, that he didn't have a right to say no, or that his right to say no was not violated.
I'm sorry your son had to deal with a psycho, but unless she's a giant or homicidal/suicidal, he did have the power to say no (I never said he didn't have the right to say no). He didn't do so. Your mom's rarely going to get the whole, unadulterated story; I'm guessing you got an approximation of the truth. But good for him for ditching her eventually.
Quote:
I've been on Relationships subforum for over a decade. I know the lingo. You know who is really unattractive? Guys who buy into red pill crap. And they always think that women can't pick up on a vibe or know that they have a head full of toxic nonsense. I'd sooner date the ugliest man on earth if he had a healthy mindset and an enjoyable personality, than the best looking one if he talked like one of the pill crowd, or even one of the chauvinist precursors. Also, men are easily fooled by other men. Some guy talks like he's got game and you all believe him.
I subscribe to no packaged 'red-pill' worldview, I just thought it was kind of funny you were echoing all the lingo (in an effort to lampoon it). 'I all' follow no gurus. Most of the red-pill/'manosphere' voices prey on lost and/or very young guys low on the 'SMV' totem pole who need a guiding figure.
Quote:
But the other aspect, too, is that a man who is good at fooling young, immature, unwise women... Other men see him as a success because those women are what guys always think they want, but women who have lived a little bit of life (not talking "cat ladies" or old women, but like, 25+, or not sheltered, had a chance to live and learn a little women)...we see it as predatory.
Personally, I never fooled or preyed on anyone. The large majority initiated contact with me, were a similar age, and we were often both intoxicated, I usually the moreso. But yes, there are a very small number of 'professional' player types who are sociopaths and do it with premeditation as a practice.
Quote:
But even if it were a problem (and I'm not remotely convinced that it is) it would not be worth the subjugation of half the population and the loss of freedoms, options, and choices in life, to solve it.
You yourself described it as 'entropy' (disorder/chaos) and suggested that other places (seemingly Africa, India/Middle East, Latin America) will pick up the population slack. I'm not saying those places all have it all or mostly right, and I wouldn't trade societies (with respect to many countries there). But maybe both worlds can learn something from each other / find a medium that works better long-term.
That may be true outside your experience as a broader trend (that things are getting better), I wouldn't know since never married/divorced, but that's not nearly good enough. Most people will take whatever the lawyer can get them and the dictator/dictatress judge will give them. The legal system needs to change, we can't count on people to act right especially in highly emotionally charged, extremely high-stakes contexts. Same reason why we need guns, security guards, and door locks, not friendly persuasion, to stop criminals.
I'm sorry your son had to deal with a psycho, but unless she's a giant or homicidal/suicidal, he did have the power to say no (I never said he didn't have the right to say no). He didn't do so. Your mom's rarely going to get the whole, unadulterated story; I'm guessing you got an approximation of the truth. But good for him for ditching her eventually.
I subscribe to no packaged 'red-pill' worldview, I just thought it was kind of funny you were echoing all the lingo (in an effort to lampoon it). 'I all' follow no gurus. Most of the red-pill/'manosphere' voices prey on lost and/or very young guys low on the 'SMV' totem pole who need a guiding figure.
Personally, I never fooled or preyed on anyone. The large majority initiated contact with me, were a similar age, and we were often both intoxicated, I usually the moreso. But yes, there are a very small number of 'professional' player types who are sociopaths and do it with premeditation as a practice.
You yourself described it as 'entropy' (disorder/chaos) and suggested that other places (seemingly Africa, India/Middle East, Latin America) will pick up the population slack; suggesting they are more in line with order. Just saying (yes if we get theoretical, all systems have a tendency towards devolution/destruction, regardless of their virtues, though I don't actually believe that Newtonian law is true in terms of existence/the universe itself). I'm not saying those places all have it all or mostly right, and I wouldn't trade societies (with respect to many countries there). But maybe both worlds can learn something from each other / find a medium that works better.
Only replying for one bit of clarification... I used the word entropy, and may have chosen it poorly. Your definition of it was technically correct. I meant something more like...winding down and decay, not so much chaos and disorder. An aging population that is not renewing itself. In the United States, we could accept that affluent white citizens may be reproducing less, and be more open to immigration, but that would really freak out some of our conservative types and indeed there are some fringe who are openly worried about a shift like that. But I'm not affectionately attached to my own race enough to feel alarmed about the idea of it fading, mixing, or declining in majority here. I'm not attached to any concept of "America" as a nation with a generally white identity.
I am far more attached to a concept of America as a place where people are free to make choices. Including eschewing a traditional nuclear family for something else if it pleases them. I don't much care. But I also don't see MOST people, doing anything different. I still think that most people are cis/het/mono/vanilla, perfectly capable of finding a mate, and aiming their lives in the general direction of marriage and children. Plenty are. I see nothing at all to worry about. I don't see incels as canaries in a societal coal mine.
I agree there's no impending doom, especially when looking at it in a worldwide context. Though if 'imminent' is taken as 50 or 100 years down the line, there will be some significant tumult, if not doom / Armageddon. In that case, there will be more 'incels' / insert female equivalent and they will be canaries so to speak, the change will just be gradual. But who knows, maybe the social media / online dating world will change entirely and there will be new dynamics in play.
The Fed/banks own this country and are going to bring in immigrants for the vacant hamster wheels whether we want them or not. Otherwise there will be a deflationary collapse and public/private debts won't get paid, hence the influx we've seen in Europe. Hopefully most of the newcomers will appreciate our country's heritage of individual liberty and personal responsibility; not that white Americans and other long-present groups in the US have been doing a great job upholding those things.
In Europe unfortunately (e.g. in Germany), many seem to be there for freebies, as I saw personally while living there (free rent, free food, free everything, no urgency/need to work or assimilate). Though if we stopped bombing their countries and destabilizing them by supporting fundamentalist regimes [in order to keep the West/US geopolitically relevant], they likely wouldn't come in the first place. And in the US, most of them work hard as reputed, but many also scam the system at the same time (hide marriages so that wives can claim single-mother welfare benefits, claim working siblings cousins and spouses as dependents sometimes when they don't even live in the US, etc), and wouldn't seem to be likely to vote for politicians looking to put an end to that. And the hard-working reputation in most cases doesn't go beyond the first generation.
Last edited by pclem; 03-07-2022 at 01:03 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and politically correct. 
Maybe a little kindness and compassion is in order?
).
