Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid.
I have a male friend under 170cm like that and a woman friend who uses Badoo just because it has a minimum height filter that she sets to 190cm.
My girlfriend also has minimum height that she selected for.
It's just a nature of life.
I just think people have the same right to not work their ass off if they don't see the ROI just like other people have the right to set the minimum height.
There is actually nothing about height in the article.
chomp · 1d ago
> They believe that dating and social success are entirely determined by one's looks and/or genetics.
thefz · 20h ago
TBH the whole point of mate selection is exactly this.
krapp · 1d ago
>Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid.
It is also very clearly a subculture as well as a political movement.
const_cast · 17h ago
Yes, these things are all related. The manosphere, the alt-right, and incelism are on a venn diagram with a lot of overlap.
It's important to understand the life circumstances and propaganda that pushes young men to identifying at incels.
richliss · 1d ago
With AI and robotics killing off huge amounts of entry level jobs in the next 5 years, the number of young men who are angry is going to absolutely explode.
Western countries are going to reap what they are sowing.
Feel free to copy and paste this question into your LLM of choice:
"What has happened throughout history to countries with lots of young men who don't have work or money?"
No comments yet
Simulacra · 1d ago
Maybe because I didn't meet my wife until I was 35, I think there is some rationality in all of this.
Modern dating is mostly based on how someone looks, in those short milliseconds before they decide to swipe left, or right. I think that recognizing when you may not be what women want, and that attempts in modern dating have and will continue to fail, why not just back away instead of continuing to put yourself through that?
hd4 · 1d ago
something in me hopes people here will question the fundamental hypocrisy in the derisive term "involuntary celibate"
Given this is a sociological phenomenon, it makes more sense to give them a more scientific designation even though some of their members may have called themselves in an ironic sense.
"Incel" is now widely used as a negative-connotation catch-all term for young loner men almost with the implication that they chose this life for themselves rather than being denied opportunities by society.
const_cast · 17h ago
They didn't necessarily choose the life, but there's a lot of overlap between alt-right propaganda and the red-pill incel sphere. A lot of these young men are set up for failure, but then are propagandized to blame their failure on everything external, particularly women and minorities.
The truth is everyone can get laid, and it's not very hard at all. But the pre-requisite is liking the people who you want to sleep with, which is hard when you hate women.
unsnap_biceps · 1d ago
While I understand the term fits as "derisive", I'm not understanding why you think it's a hypocritical term. It seems pretty clear that "involuntary" is correct, and a definition for celibate is "having or involving no sexual relations", so that seems to fit as well.
hd4 · 1d ago
Precisely because it's routinely used to attack them as having agency in the matter of being an "incel".
archagon · 22h ago
They do have agency. But they choose rage instead.
They need to get off the manosohere and actually engage with women like fellow human beings, not prize catches in a mating game.
xigoi · 24m ago
It doesn’t matter how you interact with women; if they already have a partner, they are obviously not going to date you.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
You know, I'm not convinced "we" should care. People get to choose their romantic partners, and they can set any standards they want. If anyone feels entitled over other people's sexual choices, they should either seek help or be treated as potential criminals, because that is a very rapey intent.
Maybe they just want attention or they're just lonely, which is a very real epidemic. Lots could be said about the state of society, such as lack of the "third space", loneliness capitalism, declining birth rates and more. But people will always get to choose their romantic partners, else it's rape because it is non-consensual. Forming groups over rapey entitled whining is not something that should be "cared about" but treated as harmful and dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with not having a romantic partner. and frankly, people need to get along with themselves first before all that. It's very sad that they don't realize there is so much more to life beyond sex and romance.
But in the end, society owes individuals nothing when it comes to finding romantic partners. it would benefit society if more people paired up, it's healthier for everyone involved and for society at large. But the strict social law that must be upheld is that individuals either adapt to the preferences of their desired romantic partners or to living a celibate life and all the consequences that come with that. There is no third option that is valid. They're not involuntary celibates, they are voluntarily maladapted.
A lot of these people don't see potential romantic partners as people, simple humans like themselves, but as boxes to check or a trophy to win in a game. Whatever the cause or reason is, they feel like if they play by the rules of a certain game, then they are entitled to a romantic partner as a reward.
My main point being, society/"we" must take a strong stance against this nonsense and say that we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful beliefs. They can accept that the world owes them nothing in this regard, they can seek help to arrive at that same conclusion or be treated as dangerous elements of society who should expect hostility not "care" or attention.
flowerthoughts · 1d ago
> But in the end, society owes individuals nothing when it comes to finding romantic partners. it would benefit society if more people paired up, it's healthier for everyone involved and for society at large. But the strict social law that must be upheld is that individuals either adapt to the preferences of their desired romantic partners or to living a celibate life and all the consequences that come with that. There is no third option that is valid. They're not involuntary celibates, they are voluntarily maladapted.
There's also the practice of having parents/congregation decide on marriage partner. I wonder if some of the would-be incels have traditionally been masked by that. Society (or rather, the economy) has strong reasons to make children happen; stronger than I think you make it out to be. It will find a new way to do match making.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
I think you have a point, but I like how contemporary arranged marriages are done in Indian culture in the west at least. The children consent into it. Historically, children had no choice in arranged marriage, I don't think that has any place in a society that rejects marital rape.
I'm no psychoanalyst, but I suspect how children are raised in their developmental years (<13yo) is the bedrock that is causing adults like this. If a person doesn't learn to have healthy platonic relations with the opposite sex in those years, it leads to complications and problems in personality like this.
A lot of people were raised to have societal expectation from a time society was vastly different or they were raised by families that are holding on to those historical times. But modern society no longer requires Women to play their historical role, men simply need to adapt to this reality.
I for one am happy for Women, as one would be for their sisters or mothers being liberated and empowered. A person who finds their romantic success to be a higher importance than other people's ability to live a more fair and just life to be sociopathic.
That said, society does have it's own issues in that every aspect of it penalizes not having friends, family or romantic partners. Even if someone adapts to celibacy, society won't let them be. But then again, society has a lot of issues that are more important.
birn559 · 1d ago
I have the impression, when women have systemic struggles people tend to believe it's the society's fault and when men have systemic struggles people tend to believe it's the individual's fault.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
You may not be wrong overall, when it comes to systemic issues. The problem men have in this context is systemic and societal. The problem women had historically with inequality and lack of liberties was also systemic and societal. Men not adapting to fairness and equality though, that may be societal but it isn't systemic, as in an issue caused by some social system. It maybe a psychological issue that has reached epidemic levels and maybe it can be addressed systemically, but the cause boils down to individuals not accepting a just and fair outcome.
This also applies in other matters like race relations for example. People whom historically have been afforded better opportunities suffer when people from all races are treated fairly. That is what justice looks like. Not having an unfair and unjust entitlement does not translate to suffering from a systemic issue. Accepting just and fair outcomes and adapting to a current reality is a healthy way of adapting.
The reason I feel strongly about this is because historically, when groups of people have a social complaint and they feel wronged and their entitlements taken away from them, they tend to turn to violence or some other social harm. They end up implementing injustice at mass scale. For example, regardless of your views on the topic, abortion laws in America today are designed to degrade liberties of women (regardless of anyone's intent). Fairness and equality to all members of society is not a systemic issue that needs correction. Failing to obtain a romantic partner of interest is not an unfair situation, for men or for women alike.
dinfinity · 1d ago
Are unrealistic beauty/physical expectations for girls and women an 'unfair situation', a 'systemic issue'?
The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
No, I don't think those expectations are unfair. People get to set their standards and expectations however they choose, even if what they choose is unrealistic, it is their choice. It may be harmful to them but that's another discussion, how a choice affects a person and how others might find that choice fair or unfair to them are different things entirely. People can expect other people to look exactly like anime characters or plants if they so choose.
> The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
No, that is not the best I can do. the best i can do is refer them to someone equipped to help people like a psychologist, pastor, priest or their own parents even. I did not dismiss their struggle or situation, I am dismissive of their blaming of society or women for their situation. We all have our struggles, blaming others unfairly should not be tolerated. They are hostile and dismissive towards the fact that people get to make choices over their own bodies. The moment they start holding other people or society responsible, then I consider them hostile and anti-social elements instead of humans worthy of care and compassion. So long as they accept other people's rights to make choices that affect them, then their struggles are worthy of societal care and empathy from others.
Sorry, no one gets to undermine other people's rights and liberties and then ask for compassion or understanding.
AnimalMuppet · 17h ago
> abortion laws in America today are designed to degrade liberties of women (regardless of anyone's intent)
Nope. You can't say "designed" and say "regardless of intent". Pick one. Either they were designed (and therefore done with intent), or not done with intent (and therefore not designed).
Perhaps you meant "have the effect" instead of "designed"?
notepad0x90 · 15h ago
I meant they were designed to degrade liberties of women by law makers, regardless of the intent of the voters and people who supported those laws. Even within the legislature, the people that designed the laws are a smaller subset of those who voted on the laws, that's what I meant by regardless of anyone's intent: regardless of the intent of those who crafted the law (which is bad-faith and malicious intent) or everyone else's intent which I won't presume to know.
alanfranz · 1d ago
> If anyone feels entitled over other people's sexual choices,
I don’t see how this article is suggesting that.
> we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful
Blackpills aren’t hostile or harmful.
By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
> Blackpills aren’t hostile or harmful.
If their reasoning boils down to "society owes me something, but since I can't get what I am owed, I will do ______" then I disagree.
> By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
Something is always serious wrong with society, because it comprises of humans. 100 years ago 60%+ of humans in this same society couldn't vote or open up bank accounts. Marital rape was legal. Women's role in society changed because of advancements in medicine , transportation and technology in general. These guys don't want to accept that reality. And I agree with what you said, it is a problem, society shouldn't care about them or this problem, no more than it should with other criminally inclined groups. Gangs are a problem, no one is saying we should care about gangsters, law abiding citizens agree hostility against gangs is a good things. that's how I suggest they be treated.
To be clear, I have no hostility against being celibate. the problem is when they add "involuntary" to it, as if they are being coerced. Our default setting is celibate, you have to work to change that condition. Imagine saying I'm "Involuntary non-billionaire" or something like that. That term suggest an implied entitlement, that's why they should be treated with hostility. Plenty of people live their entire lives celibate with devolving into this state.
anovikov · 1d ago
There was a good channel to make use of those young men in the society: Army conscription, back in the good old days. Then selfish boomers took it, along with many other good things, away, because they didn't want to fight in Viet Nam. Now these people will have nothing better to do than 'lie down and rot'.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
You solution is to give socially failing and disgruntled young men who're mad at the world, professional military training and weapons?
const_cast · 17h ago
That's what we did for all of human history. We kind of just kill men, their lives aren't very important in the grand scheme of society. The best thing a lot of men can do is die for some cause.
anovikov · 1d ago
After going through military service, they will be a lot less failing and a lot less disgruntled. Plus, they could be kept there for a very long time and when the military is very large, very experienced due to long service years, and is comprised of people with no positive life experiences and no positive expectations of civilian life - so after a short initial adaptation period, no longer longing to return to it - it can be used to do many beneficial things, such as building actual empires, squashing authoritarians worldwide, building contiguous, continent-wide spaces free for borderless trade and investment.
lotsofpulp · 1d ago
What better way to incentivize young people to care about elections?
Would US voters have reveled in invading Iraq on flimsy premises if their own kids were at risk?
Also, armed services can participate in humanitarian missions along with the military training. Right now, there is no country. Everyone is doing their own thing, perfectly content letting the lower classes do the dirty work.
notepad0x90 · 1d ago
Don't get me wrong, I support mandatory military service, but for everyone. not just whiny people who call themselves "incels". It will solve many critical social issues we have in the US.
lotsofpulp · 1d ago
Yes, I guess I inferred a universal mandate.
Flemlo · 1d ago
I was quite happy when I was not forced into military and the generator after me was no longer forced (Germany).
If that's your only idea... How about an orientation and self-care program instead?
anovikov · 1d ago
Well, this is a point where two problems meet: the need to beef up armed forces (especially in Germany! that faces Russian threat and completely unreliable allies), and a generation of young men with nothing to do.
unsnap_biceps · 1d ago
The article talks about them choosing not to do anything, so it's unclear to me why you believe forcing them into a role would result in any sort of positive outcome?
anovikov · 1d ago
Because most of the time, most of the people do good things only when they are forced to.
jmclnx · 1d ago
You should watch Full Metal Jacket :)
If I understood the article, many of these people were bullied in when young. So you suggest they join the military to get more bullying ? Granted, I do not know what basic training these days is like, 40 or so years ago, depending on the service, it could have been brutal.
Yes, the draft was ended but there were many reasons for that to have occurred. Some conservatives have wanted to being it back, but they never followed through because even they know there are/were many selection issues.
For example: gay vs non-gay, draft women. These two items alone could cause tons of law suits. Never mind the fact kids of the rich had ways of avoiding getting selected.
With all that said, I have seen military service help many kids, plus I knew a few who it really made this situation much worse. So like everything else "it depends".
anovikov · 8h ago
Mandatory military service is like monarchy, or democracy for that matter: good thing to keep, super easy to lose, next to impossible to get back once you lost it.
I have a male friend under 170cm like that and a woman friend who uses Badoo just because it has a minimum height filter that she sets to 190cm.
My girlfriend also has minimum height that she selected for.
It's just a nature of life.
I just think people have the same right to not work their ass off if they don't see the ROI just like other people have the right to set the minimum height.
It is also very clearly a subculture as well as a political movement.
It's important to understand the life circumstances and propaganda that pushes young men to identifying at incels.
Western countries are going to reap what they are sowing.
Feel free to copy and paste this question into your LLM of choice:
"What has happened throughout history to countries with lots of young men who don't have work or money?"
No comments yet
Modern dating is mostly based on how someone looks, in those short milliseconds before they decide to swipe left, or right. I think that recognizing when you may not be what women want, and that attempts in modern dating have and will continue to fail, why not just back away instead of continuing to put yourself through that?
"Incel" is now widely used as a negative-connotation catch-all term for young loner men almost with the implication that they chose this life for themselves rather than being denied opportunities by society.
The truth is everyone can get laid, and it's not very hard at all. But the pre-requisite is liking the people who you want to sleep with, which is hard when you hate women.
They need to get off the manosohere and actually engage with women like fellow human beings, not prize catches in a mating game.
Maybe they just want attention or they're just lonely, which is a very real epidemic. Lots could be said about the state of society, such as lack of the "third space", loneliness capitalism, declining birth rates and more. But people will always get to choose their romantic partners, else it's rape because it is non-consensual. Forming groups over rapey entitled whining is not something that should be "cared about" but treated as harmful and dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with not having a romantic partner. and frankly, people need to get along with themselves first before all that. It's very sad that they don't realize there is so much more to life beyond sex and romance.
But in the end, society owes individuals nothing when it comes to finding romantic partners. it would benefit society if more people paired up, it's healthier for everyone involved and for society at large. But the strict social law that must be upheld is that individuals either adapt to the preferences of their desired romantic partners or to living a celibate life and all the consequences that come with that. There is no third option that is valid. They're not involuntary celibates, they are voluntarily maladapted.
A lot of these people don't see potential romantic partners as people, simple humans like themselves, but as boxes to check or a trophy to win in a game. Whatever the cause or reason is, they feel like if they play by the rules of a certain game, then they are entitled to a romantic partner as a reward.
My main point being, society/"we" must take a strong stance against this nonsense and say that we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful beliefs. They can accept that the world owes them nothing in this regard, they can seek help to arrive at that same conclusion or be treated as dangerous elements of society who should expect hostility not "care" or attention.
There's also the practice of having parents/congregation decide on marriage partner. I wonder if some of the would-be incels have traditionally been masked by that. Society (or rather, the economy) has strong reasons to make children happen; stronger than I think you make it out to be. It will find a new way to do match making.
I'm no psychoanalyst, but I suspect how children are raised in their developmental years (<13yo) is the bedrock that is causing adults like this. If a person doesn't learn to have healthy platonic relations with the opposite sex in those years, it leads to complications and problems in personality like this.
A lot of people were raised to have societal expectation from a time society was vastly different or they were raised by families that are holding on to those historical times. But modern society no longer requires Women to play their historical role, men simply need to adapt to this reality.
I for one am happy for Women, as one would be for their sisters or mothers being liberated and empowered. A person who finds their romantic success to be a higher importance than other people's ability to live a more fair and just life to be sociopathic.
That said, society does have it's own issues in that every aspect of it penalizes not having friends, family or romantic partners. Even if someone adapts to celibacy, society won't let them be. But then again, society has a lot of issues that are more important.
This also applies in other matters like race relations for example. People whom historically have been afforded better opportunities suffer when people from all races are treated fairly. That is what justice looks like. Not having an unfair and unjust entitlement does not translate to suffering from a systemic issue. Accepting just and fair outcomes and adapting to a current reality is a healthy way of adapting.
The reason I feel strongly about this is because historically, when groups of people have a social complaint and they feel wronged and their entitlements taken away from them, they tend to turn to violence or some other social harm. They end up implementing injustice at mass scale. For example, regardless of your views on the topic, abortion laws in America today are designed to degrade liberties of women (regardless of anyone's intent). Fairness and equality to all members of society is not a systemic issue that needs correction. Failing to obtain a romantic partner of interest is not an unfair situation, for men or for women alike.
If you say yes, think about what expectations for men there are and whether those constitute a systemic issue. Hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/ma8h0...
The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
> The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
No, that is not the best I can do. the best i can do is refer them to someone equipped to help people like a psychologist, pastor, priest or their own parents even. I did not dismiss their struggle or situation, I am dismissive of their blaming of society or women for their situation. We all have our struggles, blaming others unfairly should not be tolerated. They are hostile and dismissive towards the fact that people get to make choices over their own bodies. The moment they start holding other people or society responsible, then I consider them hostile and anti-social elements instead of humans worthy of care and compassion. So long as they accept other people's rights to make choices that affect them, then their struggles are worthy of societal care and empathy from others.
Sorry, no one gets to undermine other people's rights and liberties and then ask for compassion or understanding.
Nope. You can't say "designed" and say "regardless of intent". Pick one. Either they were designed (and therefore done with intent), or not done with intent (and therefore not designed).
Perhaps you meant "have the effect" instead of "designed"?
I don’t see how this article is suggesting that.
> we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful
Blackpills aren’t hostile or harmful.
By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
If their reasoning boils down to "society owes me something, but since I can't get what I am owed, I will do ______" then I disagree.
> By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
Something is always serious wrong with society, because it comprises of humans. 100 years ago 60%+ of humans in this same society couldn't vote or open up bank accounts. Marital rape was legal. Women's role in society changed because of advancements in medicine , transportation and technology in general. These guys don't want to accept that reality. And I agree with what you said, it is a problem, society shouldn't care about them or this problem, no more than it should with other criminally inclined groups. Gangs are a problem, no one is saying we should care about gangsters, law abiding citizens agree hostility against gangs is a good things. that's how I suggest they be treated.
To be clear, I have no hostility against being celibate. the problem is when they add "involuntary" to it, as if they are being coerced. Our default setting is celibate, you have to work to change that condition. Imagine saying I'm "Involuntary non-billionaire" or something like that. That term suggest an implied entitlement, that's why they should be treated with hostility. Plenty of people live their entire lives celibate with devolving into this state.
Would US voters have reveled in invading Iraq on flimsy premises if their own kids were at risk?
Also, armed services can participate in humanitarian missions along with the military training. Right now, there is no country. Everyone is doing their own thing, perfectly content letting the lower classes do the dirty work.
If that's your only idea... How about an orientation and self-care program instead?
If I understood the article, many of these people were bullied in when young. So you suggest they join the military to get more bullying ? Granted, I do not know what basic training these days is like, 40 or so years ago, depending on the service, it could have been brutal.
Yes, the draft was ended but there were many reasons for that to have occurred. Some conservatives have wanted to being it back, but they never followed through because even they know there are/were many selection issues.
For example: gay vs non-gay, draft women. These two items alone could cause tons of law suits. Never mind the fact kids of the rich had ways of avoiding getting selected.
With all that said, I have seen military service help many kids, plus I knew a few who it really made this situation much worse. So like everything else "it depends".