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.
I think the tricky part for young men is that they have to demonstrate a certain level of "worthiness" before a woman will engage with him physically.
Women tend to have broader social networks of friends, family, colleagues etc., so there's less feeling of isolation. On top of that, if a woman is content with her life but just wants her physical needs met from time-to-time, there's always a good looking, "gifted" man out there willing to oblige her with no strings attached. A friend with benefits. Women can have their physical and emotional needs met without having to do as much work as an average man would.
Young men grow up with the mindset that if "I'm a nice guy and do XYZ, girls will like me" because that how it is in TV and movies. Some dad-bod, poorly dressed guy gets Salma Hayek. This gets ingrained in a lot guys' heads and so they end up wondering why they too can't look like Average Joe Schlub from the movies and pull the most attractive women in their circle. Some guys take it as a chance at self-improvement and so they work to make themselves more appealing by using humor, fitness, clothing style etc. Other guys stay in the same rut and never change. They get more bitter and then double down....ignoring women that might actually be interested in them in favor of women that are completely out of their league. The kind of ladies that the captain of the football team is nervous to ask out on a date.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
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.)
I appreciate the edit comment, Sonic. I want to clarify the part of my comment you pulled earlier, though.
I added a bit more of my original comment for context. I was talking about a particular subset of men and women, and how being in that subset might land on men and women differently based on the way dating dynamics typically work. Men usually approach women or have qualities that draw women to them. And how that might contribute. Without arguing against your points, I think mine still stands.
You've often said a man doesn't need to be especially good looking to get attention, but he has to have some quality that women notice. We agree on that. Men with a moderate level of social anxiety will often have a very tough time engaging women in two ways. They struggle to effectively initiate contact, and they seldom put themselves in a position to be noticed. A spotlight is something to run from, not something to bathe in the warmth of.
So a man whose looks may be fine but not so fine that women defy customs, who is just beyond endearingly clumsy on those rare occasions he tries to woo a women (do people still woo?) and who avoids drawing attention to himself is likely SOL as far as dating goes before he ever starts.
A woman with the same issues is less impacted by those challenges. Because men typically approach women more than women approach men, the issues that mostly shut him down won't do the same to her. That doesn't mean she gets the relationship she wants without risk or at all, but it does mean she faces about the same challenges any woman faces, as you outlined. Nothing I said diminished those challenges, and the fact that they're the challenges all women face sucks. I can't change that though, and it doesn't seem to invalidate my point in this context. The context being what can be done to address issues that lead men in particular to toxic beliefs, and addressing those issues and beliefs requires understanding them.
I've been familiar with incels since I was a teenager. I remember the news when Elliot Rodger went on his rampage. I have a socially maladjusted cousin who had similar disturbing thoughts and eventually embraced the ideology in his 20s.
From what I gather, incels aren't obsessed with sex per say but the lack of any form of intimacy with the opposite sex. My cousin growing up, never had any female friends, and never got any discussions on sex. When he brought it up with parents, they would shut down the topic. They also didn't approve of him doing feminine things.
It seems to me that sex is like drug prohibition for incels. By making it taboo to have an honest discussion about it, many hype it up and develop totally distorted views. Perhaps by having comprehensive sex ed and breaking down gender norms, they'd be less likely to fall down the rabbit hole.
I have to totally disagree on the origins of it.
I think that many/most incels become that way because they refuse to understand that human attraction is extremely complicated. At their base, many of them seem to think that achieving a satisfying relationship is like a video game or carnival ride. Either they think they can put in "nice tokens" in return for attraction and companionship, or that another quality is a guarantee of happy companionship. This is often exacerbated when they focus on things that can't be changed (height, etc...)
They obsess and rage about a perceived undesirable trait they have that they can't change or would be extremely difficult/expensive to change, and blame that and blame women for it.
What they ignore is that (as an example,) lots of short men have satisfying relationships with nice women. Lots of bald men have satisfying relationships with women. Lots of overweight men have satisfying relationships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
I mean, hell, we've had men show up over the years in Relationships who will even admit that they have not been shut out of the ability to have sex or to date, they've been with women...yet they spout all the same language and ideas and bitterness and anger. Even simply not having found what they believe is their specific goal and their own notion of a Happily Ever After is enough to tip them into the mindset and send them seeking other men to commiserate with online. And groups of guys who are mad about the terms of divorces can sometimes fit the same vibe as well. Some of them have actually been through traumatizing divorces, some are just using their imagination and things they've heard to paint women as generally evil villains.
I think that's a very very different thing; its one thing to have been wronged having a sense of bitterness or anger about actually actually experiencing bad breaks as opposed to being enraged that the route to a relationship in the first place isn't actually what they think it is. I have a family member that was bitter about women/relationships for awhile after his divorce. But a year or two later, he got past it. And, his sentiments seemed hardly unique to his gender...plenty of recently divorced women seemed equally sour on the opposite sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork
I put all of them into a big camp together, really. It goes far, far beyond whether a man has had sex or not. I mean...I've known in person a few guys who were inexperienced sexually well into advanced adulthood and yet who did not have the mindset that one associates with "incel."
The problem with the term, is that isn't anyone that's largely single but wouldn't mind being in a relationship "involuntarily celibate?" Yet obviously, its a phrase that we associate with an angry person that is convinced that his situation is the fault of women, not him.
What they ignore is that (as an example,) lots of short men have satisfying relationships with nice women. Lots of bald men have satisfying relationships with women. Lots of overweight men have satisfying relationships.
This is where confirmation bias can be a problem. People tend to see what they have already decided is true. If you really pay attention or do any actual people watching, you will see plenty of examples of "how did that homely person end up with that gorgeous person?" There are even examples in the public realm of celebrities. Cate Blanchett is by all accounts happily married to a guy you wouldn't think she would give a second look at, given her options. People pair-bond for all sorts of reasons, not all of them physical. And when the bond happens, they look beautiful to you anyway. My wife used to be a size 2, and she is a size 18 ATM, and she's beautiful to me. I'm encouraging her to exercise and so forth for the sake of her health and mental well being, but I'm not going to be more into her if she loses 40 pounds, either. I'm already into her.
I think a lot of incel thinking is absolutist / black-and-white over superficialities. It is a convenient narrative for them that women are shallow about things that the incel has no control over. People are attracted as much to minds and personalities, to how the person makes them FEEL as to how they look. I have definitely met homely women who look to me like they'd be an absolute delight to be with, because of their wonderful attitude, their approachability, the fact that they "keep it real", etc. Not to mention intelligence, and the wellspring of intelligence, curiosity. As a sapiosexual I can tell you that I would take a smart woman over an airhead any day, totally apart from physical specifications.
I appreciate the edit comment, Sonic. I want to clarify the part of my comment you pulled earlier, though.
I added a bit more of my original comment for context. I was talking about a particular subset of men and women, and how being in that subset might land on men and women differently based on the way dating dynamics typically work. Men usually approach women or have qualities that draw women to them. And how that might contribute. Without arguing against your points, I think mine still stands.
You've often said a man doesn't need to be especially good looking to get attention, but he has to have some quality that women notice. We agree on that. Men with a moderate level of social anxiety will often have a very tough time engaging women in two ways. They struggle to effectively initiate contact, and they seldom put themselves in a position to be noticed. A spotlight is something to run from, not something to bathe in the warmth of.
So a man whose looks may be fine but not so fine that women defy customs, who is just beyond endearingly clumsy on those rare occasions he tries to woo a women (do people still woo?) and who avoids drawing attention to himself is likely SOL as far as dating goes before he ever starts.
A woman with the same issues is less impacted by those challenges. Because men typically approach women more than women approach men, the issues that mostly shut him down won't do the same to her. That doesn't mean she gets the relationship she wants without risk or at all, but it does mean she faces about the same challenges any woman faces, as you outlined. Nothing I said diminished those challenges, and the fact that they're the challenges all women face sucks. I can't change that though, and it doesn't seem to invalidate my point in this context. The context being what can be done to address issues that lead men in particular to toxic beliefs, and addressing those issues and beliefs requires understanding them.
The issue is with the point that the guys are mad that women have what they think they want. Lots of "opportunities."
But if they had the "opportunities" that we do, they would learn that it's not a great thing to have.
If you get approached by various dudes but half or better of them are users or abusers or some variation of "will make your life hell if you let them" and there is no way for you to tell which ones they are... How is this such a great thing?
And of course that does not even address the question of how they would feel if they got approached by women but most of them were sloppy drunk, or hideous, or vastly older, or smelled bad, or were huge and hairy and loud... "You can go to a bar and men will line up to have sex with you!"
Not to mention that all of this "attention"....honestly, I was getting LOTS more of it when I was a 12 year old girl than I did even in my 20s, 30s, let alone beyond, from random adult men in public.
So I'm not grateful for this "attention." I cannot accept that this great privilege my gender supposedly has, is something that these poor fellas are so very deprived of.
They need to imagine it not as WOMEN giving them this attention that they are mad they don't get, but their fellow men. The men that I described earlier. Bigger, hairier, older, louder, drunker, smellier than they are, shuffling up and aggressively hitting on them at bars. Or at least a woman who is as threatening or gross as that. When I actually spent time in bars (because of my pool league) those were the only kinds of men who hit on me. I think the normal guys understood that I was there to shoot pool, not to hook up.
And as others have said elsewhere, and I touched upon... Women who don't go to meat markets and brave the shuffling zombie horde, if they are shy and/or not stunning, we actually do NOT have men approaching us the way that men think we do. I've never once in my life been approached in a grocery store. What a lot of men think that women's lives are like, is often pure fantasy.
And I'll go a step further, too. I have met a few trans women who seemed to be not so much of the "I knew I was a girl since I was a little child" but more of a flavor that appears to think that being a man means that no one wants you and life sucks, and if only they could become a woman, they'd be swimming in a sea of glorious desire and human warmth. This is a horribly untrue thing to think, first of all, and not every woman even has a supportive social network either. It is not issued to us at birth. We have to build and maintain them (or not.) And furthermore, my heart breaks to think that they might expect to get a wave of love and desire and support upon transition, only to step into the heels of one of the most persecuted categories of people in American society, today.
I mean we had a poster here for ages who repeatedly claimed that living as a woman in America was living life with all the cheat codes, on "God mode." You've got to know that isn't true. How can he not have heard so many women telling all about the hardships we've endured in our lives??? Do guys just not hear us, not believe it, or are the voices in their heads just that much louder, or what?
A woman with the same issues is less impacted by those challenges. Because men typically approach women more than women approach men, the issues that mostly shut him down won't do the same to her. That doesn't mean she gets the relationship she wants without risk or at all, but it does mean she faces about the same challenges any woman faces, as you outlined. Nothing I said diminished those challenges, and the fact that they're the challenges all women face sucks. I can't change that though, and it doesn't seem to invalidate my point in this context. The context being what can be done to address issues that lead men in particular to toxic beliefs, and addressing those issues and beliefs requires understanding them.
The other thing is that when women are socially awkward/have unusual social behavior, a lot of men actually find it attractive, because it can come off as more genuine/trustworthy. In any case, it's never really unattractive unless it demonstrates mental illness, an intolerable belief system, really annoying habit, total social dysfunction, etc. (to be fair though, quirks in a man can also attract women as long as the man stands on his own two feet and is confident in himself). But speaking in generalizations, at least in the initial assessment, women seem to look more at how a man interacts/interplays with society and with the people around the man and the woman, and almost base their perception on the appearance or lack thereof of indirect indications/clues rather than on direct analysis, while men generally don't care about a woman's relationship with others/with society and directly contemplate/assess the woman on an individual basis, in terms of her innate personality and looks. For example, the concept of 'social proof' and a woman being attractive because other men find her attractive is totally foreign to all or almost all men, but seems to apply to many if not most women.
So basically a woman can be shy and awkward as all hell, but as long as she manages to engage the guy somehow and get on his radar/be in his presence, it's not really going to hurt her odds at all. She can be super short, broke, have no friends, no formal education, no accomplishments, and live with her parents and it won't really affect her chances with men assuming she has a good personality (smart, funny, good taste, honest, etc.), and some of those things may even help with some men looking to play hero i.e. feel needed/effective. (The only exception to this would be high school and to a much lesser degree college society where women can engineer friend groups that go to parties where certain guys will be present, etc., increasing their chances with said guys by virtue of being the only women present.) Obviously it's not usually the same with men (though to again be fair I've seen plenty of guys who had no money and no conventional successes/prospects get 'quality' women; granted they were not particularly short, are reasonably good-looking, and are funny/good personality); but talking generalizations here. I'm not saying it's unfair, the genders are different and each has pros and cons, and I frankly wouldn't want to trade; it is what it is.
Re: the wooing you refer to, in many cases where a woman technically makes the initial contact/comment or flirts with a man, the man can intentionally increase chances of that having happened without approaching/addressing her directly (be funny within a group, speak to her friend(s) which then pulls her into the conversation, etc.). So it's not a case of one party or the other having all the assertiveness.
Historically more women have reproduced than men. That's because multiple women will be willing to mate with a high-status man, leaving the same number of low-status men out in the cold.
Biologically this makes sense because a pregnant woman is unavailable for about a year. Furthermore women are fertile for fewer years than men are virile. This means women are in short supply, hence why they have the dominant hand in the mating market.
Evolutionarily this makes sense because men exhibit more variance in their traits. So a larger proportion of men are unfit for reproduction, due to physical, emotional, or behavioral problems.
The cultural institution of monogamy was an innovative compromise which is now on its way out for various reasons. We are reverting to an earlier mating model which is "winner takes all" for high-status men. Women seem to not mind this as much as men, so arguably monogamy as an institution was a loss for women and a gain for men.
It may be that as more mating market losers are created, there will be more outbursts of violence and anger. It's no different than class-based arguments that increasing income inequality will lead to revolution. That may or may not be true, but the implied justification in these arguments (if you want less class violence, share the wealth; if you want less sexual violence, share the mates) are of the same kind.
I think the OP's proposed demystifying of sex could work at the edges, but is akin to telling poor people that being rich isn't all that great, to continue the analogy. Not pairing up with a mate is not a trivial thing. That's what life has evolved to do, and failing to do that affects people on a very deep level out of their control.
I think our society already does a good job of providing distractions from the biological imperative that can provide meaning beyond pairing up and having children. These range from the noble to the prurient. I am sure the proliferation of these distractions has enabled the increase in incel numbers. Just consider if in some alternate universe that Tinder had been invented and online porn had not. That would be a violent world!
Actually, women in their 40's and 50's without a partner and active dating life are generally referred to as "crazy cat ladies", whether they actually have cats or not. It's simply become a meme for their age and non-dating status. The difference between them and incels is that, on the whole, those women don't commit violence against men who won't date them, or express terribly misogynistic views toward men on the whole. In fact, sadly, those women are often still trying to "freshen the bait" with diet, makeup, new clothes, etc. so that they can entice a guy to go out with them. The incels believe that women should want them just as they are, warts and all, because they deserve it.
I think we need to re-set on something.
<<Points to thread title>>
They're labeling people incels, that's not self-identifying as such.
I'm not defending true incels that have these negative attitudes and frankly mental health issues imo but rather that there are very few actual incels out there and then a whole bunch of guys that are labeled that whom are more like your depiction of the crazy cat ladies...struggling in the marketplace so to speak.
P.S. The incels aren't the only bitter folks out there with mental issues.
"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.
I'm describing how both terms can be thrown around as insults beyond those that actually identify as such.
Age difference doesn't matter. The reality of actual incels and "hags" or whatever word you want to use is that they're angry and frustrated and bitter. I just see a lot of commonalities between the two groups and I had an "aunt" get dumped for a younger woman years back and she became very much the equivalent of a incel only female and over 50.
Most importantly is just a reminder for all of us to treat people nicely and try to show a little empathy for those that are struggling.
The cultural institution of monogamy was an innovative compromise which is now on its way out for various reasons. We are reverting to an earlier mating model which is "winner takes all" for high-status men. Women seem to not mind this as much as men, so arguably monogamy as an institution was a loss for women and a gain for men.
I think you have to make a distinction between what women want in a FWB vs a LTR. And outside a LTR, that a woman sleeps with her choice of "high-status" men does not rule out the losers of the FWB lottery for a LTR.
My wife had a "thing" for "bad boys" and had a series of non-open relationships in her salad days with attractive men who usually ended up cheating on her. I am not ripped, athletic or handy with tools but I am established, stable, successful and loyal. So I think women choose different kinds of men for different kinds of purposes. I suppose we're both shadows of our former selves, but I take a certain pleasure in the fact that I ultimately got the girl that boys used to literally fight over back in the day :-) Ironically, "back in the day" I was not one of those Greek gods who cut a wide swath through the student bodies though. So ... sometimes the worm turns.
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.
