gender views cause of incel.

[Beer w/Straw]

And here's one from someone who had better things to do than become an incel:

Spoiler

Sometimes it's hard to explain to someone how cynical and bitterly sarcastic the 80s were, but since we're in a revival:

Spoiler

(The raping cannibalism can probably wait for another day, but it should be noted I learned of the band because Tipper Gore complained about them, which had the effect of making sure a bunch of us bought the album. Still, if you can keep from simultaneously laughing and retching, the early Peter Steele in the middle is almost perfect.)

Oh! Oh oh oh oh oh!

Spoiler

You know this is only going downhill, right?

Spoiler

And, y'know, this actually reminds me of an important point: Start a band. Dude can be ugly as sin, can even be outsize as hell, can wear makeup, even lingerie and a dress, and chicks will line up for it. And, shit, given what passes for a band, these days, why sit around on the 'net complaining about women all day? If Messiah Marcolin can get chicks? And, hell, talk about an incel power fantasy, how about a chick in a tower whose job is to suffer↱? Oh, hey, what about TAD, for heaven's sake?

Spoiler

Anyway, we now return this thread to its regularly-scheduled disaster.

Here's an entertaining crux: all those bands think Ozzy is God and Britney Spears can get more chicks then all of them combined.

https://youtu.be/0aEnnH6t8Ts

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=if u seek amy

:EDIT:

And there is only one thing Britney should do in order to redeem herself in the eyes of God.

https://youtu.be/z2CNahrsZ5U

 

[gamelord]

Some people ain't never gonna get laid. It's just a fact of life.

It's not that incels never get laid, its that they get laid infrequently, like once or twice a year or every 3 years, and when they do get laid its usually of low or at best medium quality, where the girl does not love them.

The main issue here, is that males have to strive to get attention, whilst females inherit it easily.
For instance, a male has to be perfectly hygienic, hair always fresh and instyle, successful at life, positive attitude, charming, phyiscally fit, clean-shaven, perfect genetics, etc. to get female attention, and even that he usually does not get very much female attention or the quality of attention he wishes.

Meanwhile, a girl can walk around smelling like onions, act like a rude bitch, and have no fashion sense at all, have imperfect genetics, and get at least 1 guy to flirt with her a day or a week, all she literally has to do is not be morbidly obese.

Partly it is an agenda to keep males down. And yes both men and women are to blame for this agenda. For instance if a man tries to wear sexy or glamorous clothes, he gets shamed by men and women and told to man up and be a real man. So we live in a society where males can't wear makeup or sexy clothes, meanwhile women can wear all manner of sexy clothes to seduce.

Women "say" they want real men but what they mostly what is a man who agrees with them on issues, a man who obeys the wife of the house, a man who follows orders, a man who gives them money. Real men go around grocery stores, go around the town, do you see women flirting with them ever? Never. The only time women ever flirt in public is with a cute guy, who wears makeup and sexy clothes.

I have actually proven the science of this. I went to a club, this was a club for heterosexuals. I go observe several days for 3 hours, no girls flirt with any guys. Only the guys approach the girls. No girl flirts up to me either. Then I go in again, wearing makeup and being girly. All of a sudden girls are coming to me begging to dance. And then one girl even lets me dry hump her in front of her husband. I never did get laid because unfortunately they had no backrooms to get laid in. And all of the girls had boyfriends so our relationships never went anywhere.

This brings me to exhibit 3 of my proclamations, the fickleness of women. Women will flirt with their eyes, rub your hand sexually and lustfully, and as soon as you let them know you are okay with it, they lose interest. Women want men they can't have. Women will walk up to a man and kiss him without asking.
Yet if a man does the same exact thing, it is considered sexually harassment. Women have a free ticket to play abusive narcissistic mindgames, sexually molest people, and kiss them without asking, and society gives them a free pass. But if a man uses the same tactics as a woman does, he is quietly asked to leave. Its just how society is set up.

Males are beginning to get sick and tired of this kind of treatment. Just like in the olden days women were tired of being second-class citizens in the political game, and begged for the right to vote. Males are getting tired of being treated like second class citizens in the love game.

Now my opinion is that nobody's votes do anything and the 2 party system is rigged and a joke, but that is an entirely different discussion altogether.

 

[gamelord]

My responses to the rock videos

Response 1:

Response 2:

There is no bad music however, just music that we don't happen to like.

False. Vibrations can cause bad health effects, such as the frequency of Flourescent light vibrations or annoying sounds. For instance hearing nails on a chalkboard or bad violins.
But music in this age takes it a step further, with newly invented digital sounds which havent been tested for centuries. The non-analogy nature of these sounds is questionable.
Music takes it a step further though, adding human error and bad art form to the equation.
Similar to how spartans listened to violent note sequences, or that one concert turned everyone at the concert mad and violent, similarly, certain note sequences can cause bad mental health or sickness. Since most songs are about dating these can cause a kind of toxic cultural attitude about dating.

Does brittany spears cause incel

No, I was talking about pop of the more recent variety. It's not so much about the lyrics themselves, but the actual notes and tonations which cause mental sickness.

 

[gamelord]

Tiassa, you may fool the sheeple majority with your hyperbole, but do you really think you will convince the thinking man (or thinking woman) with your drivel? But have fun converting the belieber's to your cause.

Sigh I guess this calls for an actual response to your tedium.

Seattle, the problem with me is I do not pass as a woman. I live in a shallow world where unless you are genetically perfect, people do not like you. I am not a genetically perfect racial female and that is why I have trouble at times, that is I am not wholly one race but many. People only seek out perfect genetic specimens and as Beer says, I am "oversize' as well as a bit chubby. But in addition to this, most of the sheeple, the beliebers, I cannot relate to, I have nothing in common with the majority or anything to hold us with any meaningful bond.

 

[spidergoat]

People only seek out perfect genetic specimens

Not true. People are varied, and as different as you think you are, there are people either just like you or attracted to people just like you. Stop whining, we live in the internet age when entire nations are accessible for dating.

 

[gamelord]

One question that comes to mind is whether you know how to talk to strangers at all.

Most people don't feel comfortable talking to strangers, but of course if you are male you are expected to be "superman" and if you aren't a perfect speciment with every known talent in the world, then obviously it is "your fault" for failing.

​

—part of the reason nobody is quite certain what to tell you is that you describe an internal fantasy. When the point has to do with, "Emo guys in girly makeup, getting 30 girls obsessed with him", or "transsexuals getting a bunch of women interested in them", yeah, actually, that's the thing: What are those people talking about?

They aren't talking about anything. They just post narcissistic selfies and get comments.

I ask about talking to strangers at all because it is unclear from your posts whether you understand the substantive, experiential difference between talking to someone about the baseball game on television and not being able to have a conversation without some guy hitting on you. So the first thing is, when you go to the men's room, do you hit on the guy standing at the next urinal? Do you talk about the sports page tacked up for men to stare at while they piss? Do you say nothing? Okay, now you're belly up to the bar, it's the bottom of the sixth: Do you not talk to any of the men? Do you not have anything in your conversational repertoire that doesn't involve trying to find a woman?

I dont talk to men at the mens room it is awkward. I dont go to the bar very often and when I do, I don't talk about sports, sports bore me. When I talk to people it is about entertainment, philosophy, or politics or jokes.

Spoiler

Tweets by @hels, responding to Ross Douthat, 3 May 2018.​

Nice spoiler but you and i live in different worlds.
I live in the world of logic, compassion, and reality, you live in the world of shaming and politicking.
The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate.
You can place a fake American meaning on it if you want.
But it seems like sexism or racism.
Kind of like how saying black means rapist, criminal, or watermelon.
Because you are saying that all incels are rapists.
You are warping the meaning of the word, which simply means involuntary celibate.
Though males to have a genetic tendency to suffer more mental illness during bouts of sexual frustration, thus would be more likely to rape than incel females.

As I said↗ in the other discussion: You really have no idea, do you?

I'll tell you a sick joke that never really was a joke in the way I'm telling it, but, rather, a prejudice from a quarter-century ago, largely still in place, in Oregon:

• How did the fat, ugly chick find so quickly someone to fuck? She went to a "Mexican" bar. How did she seduce that man? She showed up. How did she play her cards just right? She didn't say no when he hit on her. What confidence did she demonstrate? She walked up to the bar and tried to order a drink for herself, and he just wasn't going to let that happen. That wily bitch just played him because everybody knows a woman isn't supposed to order her own drink in a bar.​

The actual underlying prejudice in that was and remains well-known, a suggestion that many hispanic men prefer larger white women.

Dont know how this discussion started to be about mexicans. But I do know that fugly women have an easier time to get laid than fugly men.

It's just one example, sure, but part of the problem is that you describe circumstances most of the people responding to you just don't seem to recognize. To wit, I asked you about talking to strangers; there's also a question of whether or not you know how men and women have sex with each other. Point 11 in your response fails to resolve the latter.

Maybe I misunderstood, I though when you said sex I thought you meant sex positions. Maybe you mean how do men "get laid" in general. Well usually the man approaches the woman. Encounters resistance, then has to find another woman after his confidence is shattered. Eventually after being rejected several times, he is expected to act cool and play fair and bottle his rage and negative feelings. Eventually, he plays his cards right and finds a woman who decides to give him a chance. Then the man encounters more fickle narcissistic behavior from the woman, and its a 50/50 if he will get laid or has to go home alone. Of course the man must keep calm at all times, like not get mad the woman insults or rejects him at all, and be the brunt of the woman's abuse. This is the story of the majority of men, and is not unique.

You perpetually complain about women. They're not the problem, here. Why show your contempt and resentment for the powers that be, most of which coincidentally happen to be male, by constantly bawling about women? Especially when you don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about?

Because women stand by these men. Women would rather date corrupt oil cartels and corrupt politicians than me. Women support and adore this corrupt system of American materialism. Women want men to buy them fancy blood diamonds made in the bowels of Africa. Do you think it was men's idea to buy diamonds? No he just bought into the system. Got rejected and had bad relationships. So he figured diamonds are the only way to buy the love of a woman. Do you think a man really wants to spend 5k on a diamond when he could instead spend it on a home entertainment system or a nice vacation.

And dont defend these women by saying they were "brainwashed by the patriarchy to love diamonds." If that's your argument you are literally saying these women are too weak to think for themselves. And if they are too weak to think for themselves then they are part of the problem.

Start with the basics: Do you actually know how men and women have sex with one another? Again, your prior address of these points does not actually establish that you do.

Yes, by approach escalation.
Do you know the only women who use that on men? Prostitutes, for the money.
Because women are not attracted to most males in general.
Thus they rarely go out of their way to flirt.
Or you can keep living in fantasy land and believe we live in a world where guys walk the street and get catcalled by women.

cont.

 

[gamelord]

The functional problem is baked into your rhetoric. You clearly haven't a clue what you're on about, and as a result, people are uncertain where to start. Your argument was, "Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are." Do you see the word "only"? It's problematic in many ways. We come back to the question of talking to strangers in general. The other day, I had a not quite random conversation, in a pub, with a man (A) I had never met, before, and (B) there was between precisely and approximately zero chance I might have sex with him. We talked about beer. And baseball. What we did was proactively establish an increasing radius of acceptable discourse until we had a range in which we were comfortable just sitting back and drinking beer together. At the point we felt comfortable enough to crack a couple jokes about life in these United States, we had quasi-ritually established that we weren't about to get in a fistfight with one another. Beyond that? Seriously, there's a joke about his hair that goes here, but we can skip that, for now.

And what did the man get from this non-sexual conversation? Absolutely nothing.
Women are attracted to bad boys for the very reason they are unsafe.
Beta males are non-threatening and thus do not arouse women.
There is also a difference between being somewhat unsafe and bizzarely unsafe.
Being around a somewhat unsafe person, you know that as long as you do not yell at them or cross them, you will be fine.
Being around someone who is bizzarely unsafe, you are afraid they will murder you for no reason.
This is the threat transsexuals have to face everyday, dating bizzarrely unsafe males who will murder them for no reason.
Some cis women have no sense at all, they would reject a beta male who would never harm them, and then date some bizzarely unsafe person who is dating 20 chicks and will murder them for no reason. But, of course, then reject the nice guy who just wants a normal relationship. Then go online and complain about incels, such as Eliot Rodgers, and compare all incels to Eliot Rodgers. Despite being a murderer, I doubt Eliot would have ever actually killed his girlfriend, if he was ever provided one that is. If he had a girlfriend he probably would have turned out into a happy normal guy.

As to your point, then: If part of the problem is that the conversation never establishes a safe range, then she is less likely to feel safe among those men. This, however, has nothing to do with the question of why she would actively seek specifically displeasing or even dangerous companionship.

Genetic drives. She wants a dangerous man but not too dangerous. A man who is dangerous, but who would not kill her for no reason.
It is like a man who buys a gun. He wants a gun that is dangerous. But not a gun that will push the bullet backwards and shoot his hand when fired. Like a man does not give the gun abuse, and treats the gun with kindness, he knows it will not backfire on him. Similar a woman wants a man who as long as she does not give abuse, will not fire on her. But if a man throws a gun on the ground, kicks the gun around, there is a chance he knows it will backfire onto him.

In order to establish that "moral hypocrisy", you must typecast men in a specifically denigrating aspect; as a matter of nature, there is nothing in the Universe that forbids the coincidence of someone aesthetically not displeasing, to the one, and who doesn't sound like a threat, to the other.

Now your above sentences I do not understand. Can you be more clear? You list vague pronouns with no reference. To the one, to other, who do you refer?

All you seem willing to deal with is hotness.

Because that is what it is. Women are not physically attracted to most men. Mainly because society has some agenda of making men physically unnattractive. This is part of the agenda to make them worker drones, ie. if you work as a slave for the state long enough, you will have enough money to win a woman's unnattraction, ie. man has no worth other than his contributions to the State. That is why there is this heavy American attitude of shaming men for breaking gender norms, but only a light slap on the wrist for women who do so. And no do not bring up the 1800's, this discussion is about modern day First-world only.

The amount you focus on women, their perspective, and behavior, does actually demand consideration of women's perspectives.

As to yours? It's petulant, selfish, fallacious, objectifying, and supremacist. More directly, when you insistently attempt to project danger, people do notice.

When you consistently project delusion and hyperbolic shaming, people notice.

Not true. People are varied, and as different as you think you are, there are people either just like you or attracted to people just like you. Stop whining, we live in the internet age when entire nations are accessible for dating.

Another delusion, most of those ads they bombard you with for foreign brides, are all complete scams.
But yes on legitimate website, you can date foreign chicks, most of which are much easier and less hostile than Americans.

 

[gamelord]

Your next post is the biggest post of nonsense. While it seemed the post you made before this had a geniune attempt to use logic it seems you got lazy and just exhausted all your resources while writing this post.

How about, ignorant to the point of unbelievability?

Petty abusive ad hom.

Imagine that.



Right there, for instance. There it is.



No, seriously. Do you know why you're not doing them a favor? We'll come back to that in a moment.

Pointless fluff of no substance.

Selfish, fallacious, and objectifying.

Angry feminist throwing out random accusations which in this case aren't even remotely true.
If anything, I was accusing women of objectifying men, by only valuing them as a money object.

You still don't get it, do you?

You're not doing women a favor. We come back to the question of whether you understand the basic differences about how men and women have sex with each other.

Yes I'm really not. Cause' im ending their scheme of money laundering and holding men hostage with sex, in exchange for financial compensation.

Selfish, objectifying.

More whining and hyperbolic nonsense. I painted a metaphorical story about a man providing room and board to a woman. Yet somehow this "objectifies" women.

You are not qualified to decide what men are homosexual or not.

I am actually. Every time I think a man is gay, he actually admits to me that he is gay.
Same with bisexuals.
But obviously, only the man himself knows for sure.



Let us know when you intend to start making sense.

But your projections of people you aren't have nothing to do with logic.



You do put effort into that chic ambience of dangerous incompetence.

The superficiality of your argument, on that occasion, is what stands out.

There's not enough coverup, rouge, mascara, or whatever else to hide an attitude problem like that.

So me posting the facts, makes me superficial. Posting the facts means I have an attitude problem. As opposed as to throwing fallacious ad-homs and shaming people who disagree with me, like you do. Noted.

Who did the peer review?

If the Nazi cures cancer, then a Nazi cures cancer; if the Nazis had achieved a deployable atomic bomb, then the Nazis would have achieved a deployable atomic bomb. That manner of science is what it is. But if someone tells me a Nazi has done a survey and figured out what's wrong with Jews, well, I actually have a hard time believing you need this basic difference explained to you.

Noted, but still irrelevant. If a Nazi flaws out flaws in the Jew religion, or flaws in the gene code of semetic ancestry, then the facts are the facts (that is, if they truly are facts). Doesn't give the right for nazis to kill jews, but just because a nazi says something doesn't automatically make it false.
Just like if Eliot Rodger points out flaws in the dating system, doesn't give him the right to send women to concentration camps, never the less the flaws in the dating system may (or possibly not) be real.

Let's try this other role reversal: Okay, she's the man, you're the woman; have sex.

Not sure how to answer, as you are vague as per usual.

It's not quite funny; several months ago I found myself in a weird discussion with a couple of trendy mgtow poseurs who couldn't quite figure out the difference, either. And that actually puts me in mind of this chap I remember, from overseas, who, when actually pointed to the difference, still couldn't grasp the concept.

Maybe because, your question was vague as per usual.
She's the man?
What does this mean?
Is she a futa?
Crossdresser?
Lady with a dick?
Lady with a dildo?
The top in bed?
Or an actual man, and you are an actual woman?
Was she a man before or after the bed scene?
You never specified any of these things.
​

It's not merely the lack of respect you show women; it's also the pretense of ignorance that goes into that dearth. The person you present to us, here, is dangerous.

As to the overabundance of respect you show me and other males?
I guess I am dangerous because my words go against the propoganda of the day.
I am intellectually dangerous to the "status quo".

Your question is fallacious insofar as it proposes {not X} because {Q}, but that not only presents a false circumstance, {Q} ("negate personality") when what it responds to considers {X} because of {A, B, C}, it also overlooks the basic relationship between what one identifies as and what that means to others.

Identifying according to a dangerous label does affect how people perceive you, especially in proximity to what that label regards.

People like you make a certain label sound dangerous, just as you go around accusing me of being "dangerous".
Very similar to how racists go around demonizing all blacks and calling them dangerous.
Or how you go around demonizing all males and blaming them for all the worlds problems.

There is a large number of people who aren't having sex. Not all of them choose to identify with an infamous social-identity movement whose defining aspects are antisocial.

Involuntary celibate is a fact, whether or not you identify as it or not.
If you are a human, and dont wish to identify as a human, then you are delusional.
With transsexuals it's a little bit different, because they actively want to transform their bodies and escape their bodies.
With incels the identity revolves around the inability to escape the identity they hate.
So there are similarities, but key differences.

This should not be difficult to figure out. If one decides to identify with white supremacists, people of color will take wary note, because one will have declared danger toward them. To wit, remember when you wrote↗, "If there is sexual frustration in a nation, I demand that an equal amount of women be as incel as men"? And, yes, we do notice you trying to separate yourself from incel before deciding to throw down this thread. You didn't do a very good job.

Yours and a small segment of hysterical societies idea of a word, maybe, but it is no different than racists.
For example, racists will twist a word to mean something else, for example, black means watermelon.
Incel, means evil.
That is how hysterical groups such as yourself twist words around.

No, seriously. This is why.

Notice those other elements of society haven't started systematically purging heterosexual men. Next time, don't suggest they should.

A flat out lie, when did I ever say to purge heterosexual men?
You are out right delusional at this point.

Hey, just out of curiosity: Can you tell us one thing about the person you've shown, here at Sciforums, that a woman should find attractive?

It doesn't even matter at this point what you look like; I'm asking what reason your conduct here might have given any woman you might ever wish to fuck a reason to wonder what you look like.

Okay? She happens across this site, sees your writing, and what about the character you're presenting is going to give her that vulvic vibe, that twitchy twitch, them sloppy pants, you're after?

More directly, what isn't going to disgust her?

More personal insults and abuse. But as a male, I'm expected to sit idly by and take it, especially if the abuse is given of course by a woman of authority.

But keep repeating the dogma that women are gods, holy pure and all that is good of the world.
I think that is what upsets these women. That I do not worship them and I am the devil of their godhood, I blaspheme against their holy name. Women these days want obedient suck-ups who agree with all their views.

Now, in your defense, you are not completely insane, there is some truth to your views.
The most extreme male is a festering pile of rage and uncontrollable sexual and violent urges.
However, most males are not this way, the rational man is more controlled and has more morality than those absurdist males you portray in those ridiculous rock videos.
But at the same time, people like you want to strip males of it completely, turn them into complacent slaves who have no agency of their own, slaves waiting on female love that will never come.
What is that I have to say to you?
50% sperm count.
Your ways have resulted in 50% sperm count in males of first-world countries. Your cultural emasculation have worked out so well for the world. What you provide to males is a slow-death of their souls.

When the world is ran by female narcissists, expect to get discarded for defying the gods. Of course what female narcissist would want to tolerate any views which defy the notion that she is a holy god?

 

[gamelord]

The problem is that people often talk to bodies, instead of brains.

And what's wrong with that exactly? We live in a culture where males are slaves and not allowed to obey their natural instincts of lust.
And you wonder why the sperm count of first world countries is at 50%.
1. What is wrong with a man getting a girl for a one night stand?
2. If a man has nothing in common personality-wise with a girl, then what else can he do but lust?
3. If a man is looking for a long-term relationship, then obviously he needs to connect with her personality wise. Why is a man shamed for wanting only sex, and forced into a long-term relationship? Told he is a bad person unless he only obeys the one option - the ltr.
It seems like a double standard where women are praised for using men for one-night stands, but men are shamed as evil monsters for doing the same thing.

I think Gamelord needs to be more clear about who it is and what it wants.

I want love, but it is nearly impossible to get as a male, unless you are a transsexual who fully passes as a woman.
Though I would enjoy being a woman, I want to be realistic, as not all males can fully just push a button and become female.

So I live in a culture where males get zero love or attention, unless they are rich or famous. So males resort to approach escalation tactics to get a girl.

I do not wish to use approach escalation tactics, nor do I wish to constantly flirt with women and get rejected. Nor do I wish to rape a woman.
My real wish, is that a woman loves me for who I am, where a woman approaches me, asks me for a date, but we live in a culture where that never happens to most males.

 

[Write4U]

And what's wrong with that exactly? We live in a culture where males are slaves and not allowed to obey their natural instincts of lust.

That's why you must first connect mentally. Forget the boring stuff.

 

[James R]

Gamelord, just listen to us, we'll get you laid. Submit a video of yourself, we'll tell you what is wrong with you and how to fix it.

Maybe the bar scene isn't your scene. Don't worry, we'll fix all your problems.

You're taking on big project there, by the looks of it.

 

[James R]

Against my better judgment, I'll post a reply to this thread. I think Tiassa has already correctly highlighted the main issues here, so I don't have much to add.

gamelord:

It sounds to me like you're angry at women because you feel like you're entitled to sex with women. Your attitude strikes me as one in which you think women owe it to you to have sex with you, and you're frustrated that they don't seem to be playing by the rules you expect them to play by. You're a man, so women should give you sex, you think. And if they don't, then they are stuck up bitches.

Here's the thing: you don't own women. In fact, you don't own anybody. Nobody else is obliged to satisfy your "natural instincts of lust". You have no right to expect or demand that of women, or anybody.

If you want to get laid, start by making yourself a better person. Then somebody might find you attractive enough to give their fully informed consent.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Gamelord,

it's perfectly OK that you don't understand what I'm saying because you totally lost me with this:

And yes there is something deeply wrong with people who like modern pop, as it is absolutely bad music on a chemical level which does not heal the brain as other music does, similar of course from the switch from 432 to 440 hz, which is notably toxic and such a civilization built on a toxic foundation may very well approach collapse.

Bold mine.

One of my favorite tracks from Britney's 2016 "Glory" album is: "Just Like Me". And she hasn't caused the apocalypse!

Want a shot in the dark about your discontent in life - blame your socioeconimic position, and or, your dad (the non-millennial republican who doesn't believe in global climate change by chance?)

:EDIT:

Speaking about the apocalypse

 

[Seattle]

And what's wrong with that exactly? We live in a culture where males are slaves and not allowed to obey their natural instincts of lust.
And you wonder why the sperm count of first world countries is at 50%.
1. What is wrong with a man getting a girl for a one night stand?
2. If a man has nothing in common personality-wise with a girl, then what else can he do but lust?
3. If a man is looking for a long-term relationship, then obviously he needs to connect with her personality wise. Why is a man shamed for wanting only sex, and forced into a long-term relationship? Told he is a bad person unless he only obeys the one option - the ltr.
It seems like a double standard where women are praised for using men for one-night stands, but men are shamed as evil monsters for doing the same thing.


I want love, but it is nearly impossible to get as a male, unless you are a transsexual who fully passes as a woman.
Though I would enjoy being a woman, I want to be realistic, as not all males can fully just push a button and become female.

So I live in a culture where males get zero love or attention, unless they are rich or famous. So males resort to approach escalation tactics to get a girl.

I do not wish to use approach escalation tactics, nor do I wish to constantly flirt with women and get rejected. Nor do I wish to rape a woman.
My real wish, is that a woman loves me for who I am, where a woman approaches me, asks me for a date, but we live in a culture where that never happens to most males.

There is nothing wrong with a one night stand but it's not a right, something you get just by wanting it. It takes the consent of a woman and she may not want a one-night stand.

Sperm count has nothing to do with this.

If a man has nothing in common personality-wise with a woman, she isn't likely to want to have sex with him.

You don't live in a culture where males get zero love. Plenty of males get love. You don't even consider yourself male in some of your statements.

You feel your gender is female, your body is male, and your sexual identification is to be attracted to women (and men?) and you are looking for a society where women are going to ask you for a date or if the personalities aren't compatible, just ask you for sex.

That society doesn't exist. You aren't the only one with mixed gender/sexual id combinations such as yours. Finding more of those people might be more fulfilling in terms of improving the odds of finding a like minded soul.

 

[Tiassa]

[1/3]​

Most people don't feel comfortable talking to strangers, but of course if you are male you are expected to be "superman" and if you aren't a perfect speciment with every known talent in the world, then obviously it is "your fault" for failing.

I'll take that as a no.

They aren't talking about anything. They just post narcissistic selfies and get comments.

You wouldn't actually know that.

I dont talk to men at the mens room it is awkward. I dont go to the bar very often and when I do, I don't talk about sports, sports bore me. When I talk to people it is about entertainment, philosophy, or politics or jokes.

Okay.

Nice spoiler but you and i live in different worlds.
I live in the world of logic, compassion, and reality, you live in the world of shaming and politicking.
The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate.
You can place a fake American meaning on it if you want.
But it seems like sexism or racism.
Kind of like how saying black means rapist, criminal, or watermelon.
Because you are saying that all incels are rapists.
You are warping the meaning of the word, which simply means involuntary celibate.
Though males to have a genetic tendency to suffer more mental illness during bouts of sexual frustration, thus would be more likely to rape than incel females.

Start making sense.

And try paying attention, sometime. The rise of political complaint does not herald any unique era of not getting laid.

I could draw a little shape for you and say, "This is a rune; it stands, more or less, for the letter O and means, approximately, 'heritage'." Indeed, there was a time when all that meant to me was an old book on Elder Futhark sitting on my shelf, and that the Suebians were on the map in my current game of FreeCiv. However, during this period when American Nazis claim the rune as an identity symbol, I'm probably not getting it on a t-shirt, or posting the insane photo of the Suebian navy lining up over two hundred ships in the middle of the ocean prior to invading a Marathi outpost. I know, it's a little thing, but a significant political movement has arisen, and claimed this symbol, and that's how it's going to be for a while unless American society decides we really are going to curbstomp all the Nazis and be done with it.

Similarly, the incel movement is declared, has racked up some impressive threats, and even drawn a body count. One pathetic dude wander in and crying about how, "The word in-cel stands for In-voluntary Cel-ibate" is what it is, but when he is that ignorant of history and that hostile to actual discourse, no, you're not impressing anyone, especially yourself.

Dont know how this discussion started to be about mexicans. But I do know that fugly women have an easier time to get laid than fugly men.

When you say you "don't know how this discussion started to be about", you are overlooking your own make-believe about "fat, ugly chicks". When you do that, functionally arguing that you don't know how this discussion started to be about any particular thing you have to say↑, people notice.

Maybe I misunderstood, I though when you said sex I thought you meant sex positions. Maybe you mean how do men "get laid" in general. Well usually the man approaches the woman. Encounters resistance, then has to find another woman after his confidence is shattered. Eventually after being rejected several times, he is expected to act cool and play fair and bottle his rage and negative feelings. Eventually, he plays his cards right and finds a woman who decides to give him a chance. Then the man encounters more fickle narcissistic behavior from the woman, and its a 50/50 if he will get laid or has to go home alone. Of course the man must keep calm at all times, like not get mad the woman insults or rejects him at all, and be the brunt of the woman's abuse. This is the story of the majority of men, and is not unique.

Okay, I'll take that as a no; you've convinced me.

To the other, we might be starting to understand something about the dimensions of your complaint.

Because women stand by these men ....

There comes a point at which you make the point: Any excuse to complain about women.

Again, yes, something goes here about the dimensions of your complaint.

By the way, have you ever seen someone spend five grand buying cocaine? Then again, that actually might get a dude laid. There are plenty of women who meet your superstition, but it's also true many of them fuck when sober, too.

Yes, by approach escalation.
Do you know the only women who use that on men? Prostitutes, for the money.
Because women are not attracted to most males in general.
Thus they rarely go out of their way to flirt.
Or you can keep living in fantasy land and believe we live in a world where guys walk the street and get catcalled by women.

Again. Something, something, dimensions of your complaint.

And what did the man get from this non-sexual conversation? Absolutely nothing.

You have a terrible view of men.

Beer talk. It's easy enough to suspect you don't actually understand what that means, but, yes, it's actually quite common. A lazy period spent at the pub is actually one of the more common community bonds developed between people in our societal history.

Women are attracted to bad boys for the very reason they are unsafe.
Beta males are non-threatening and thus do not arouse women.

Wrong, and wrong.

Pure make-believe.

There's always risk, but if it is as you say, the bad boys wouldn't need to pretend to be nice guys. And betas, as such, are just as dangerous or not as any other.

There is also a difference between being somewhat unsafe and bizzarely unsafe.
Being around a somewhat unsafe person, you know that as long as you do not yell at them or cross them, you will be fine.
Being around someone who is bizzarely unsafe, you are afraid they will murder you for no reason.
This is the threat transsexuals have to face everyday, dating bizzarrely unsafe males who will murder them for no reason.

Actually, I admit I'm curious why you use the word "transsexual", and what you mean by it. Outside the Rocky Horror Show, it just doesn't come up much, these days.

Some cis women have no sense at all, they would reject a beta male who would never harm them, and then date some bizzarely unsafe person who is dating 20 chicks and will murder them for no reason.

You really don't know, do you?

And, see, that's the thing; to some degree, people are moved to pity. But if there is a way to help you emerge from isolation, one of the first things you need to do is stop radiating danger. Here, stuff like this just glows with danger:

But, of course, then reject the nice guy who just wants a normal relationship. Then go online and complain about incels, such as Eliot Rodgers, and compare all incels to Eliot Rodgers. Despite being a murderer, I doubt Eliot would have ever actually killed his girlfriend, if he was ever provided one that is. If he had a girlfriend he probably would have turned out into a happy normal guy.

This is why.

This is why you fail.

This is why people trade out their pity for the easy scorn shown just another two-bit bigot stewing in tears and demanding entitlement: "I doubt Eliot would have ever actually killed his girlfriend," you wrote, "if he was ever provided one that is."

Women aren't assets to be doled out to rapemongering brats who consider decent social behavior some manner of oppression. Figure it out.

Genetic drives. She wants a dangerous man but not too dangerous. A man who is dangerous, but who would not kill her for no reason.
It is like a man who buys a gun. He wants a gun that is dangerous. But not a gun that will push the bullet backwards and shoot his hand when fired. Like a man does not give the gun abuse, and treats the gun with kindness, he knows it will not backfire on him. Similar a woman wants a man who as long as she does not give abuse, will not fire on her. But if a man throws a gun on the ground, kicks the gun around, there is a chance he knows it will backfire onto him.

A gun is designed to kill. Is that what a man is?

How do you think she would respond if he explicitly told her at the outset he was perfectly willing to kill her if he decided he had a reason?

[cont.]​

 

[Tiassa]

[2/3]​

Now your above sentences I do not understand. Can you be more clear? You list vague pronouns with no reference. To the one, to other, who do you refer?

If you paid attention to what you had written, perhaps it might be more clear. Consider we're about to review something like four posts, because this is a common disruption within your posting; you can't seem to keep on subject from post to post.

GL:Ironically it is often hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are. It is a kind of defense mechanism to deflect guilt. It is actually proven that good looking people get lesser criminal sentencing by judges. (#7↑)

Tiassa: Six: Think of it this way, according to what you describe, the hot girl would seem to not have any converstations that weren't about some man trying to snake into her snatch; in such circumstances, there is a reason she must neceessarily reject some men.

Six-A: Consider what makes a man hot.

Seven: Other people's behavior is what it is, but in this case I would ask you to pay careful attention to your own words: A "defense mechanism"? When you work through the darwinian implications of the phrase, all you're really doing is asserting the validity of hotness—an observably subjective standard—as an evolutionary outcome, and justifying the snotty exclusion and societal standards you denounce. That is to say, you are burying yourself with that phrase. (#9↑)

GL: I think you misinterpreted what was said. I meant that it was an evolutionary reflex that of moral hypocrisy, to shame others for the same crimes you are guilty of, it is an evolutionary thing that many people do. (#18↑)

Tiassa: As a defense mechanism, it keeps her alive as best it can. You and your moral judgment about guilt remind that women are not the problem, here.

In order to establish that "moral hypocrisy", you must typecast men in a specifically denigrating aspect; as a matter of nature, there is nothing in the Universe that forbids the coincidence of someone aesthetically not displeasing, to the one, and who doesn't sound like a threat, to the other.

All you seem willing to deal with is hotness. (#28↑)​

Your assertion of moral hypocrisy involves two basic points, that "hot girls who reject men and claim that men only lust for them, meanwhile these same hot girls only date people nearly as hot as they are" (#7). It's a largely incoherent bit, which is why the response (#9) only points out the functional problems with your illustration. In #18, you fail to clarify, and #28 goes on to confuse you. The short form is that your pretense of moral hypocrisy is bullshit, and you're telling people more about yourself than saying anything about women or men, but you're going out of your way to tell them an awful story as if to warn them away from you.

Because that is what it is.

And your priorities are your own.

Women are not physically attracted to most men.

Even if I was willing to search around for some context by which to grant this presupposition, it's not simply raw appearance:

Mainly because society has some agenda of making men physically unnattractive.

That, for instance, would be either a laughable conspiracy theory, or, well, masculinity as a fundamental identity component. Behavior can make a man physically unattractive. Figure it out.

This is part of the agenda to make them worker drones, ie. if you work as a slave for the state long enough, you will have enough money to win a woman's unnattraction, ie. man has no worth other than his contributions to the State.

First, that is, historically, the doing of men; second, sure, it was about women, but no so directly.

That is why there is this heavy American attitude of shaming men for breaking gender norms ...

Actually, that has more to do with ignorance, fear, and belligerence as fundamental components of masculinity.

... but only a light slap on the wrist for women who do so.

There's a lot that goes into what constitutes a light slap, as well as what counts for gender norms, but do you have any idea why explicit lesbian intimacy is so damn popular among cisgendered, heterosexual males? No, really, I can actually remember a day, squar' in heady days of the Oregon Gay Fray, when the otherwise sufficiently invisible lesbian was only to be seen onstage while doing her sister.

And no do not bring up the 1800's, this discussion is about modern day First-world only.

Yes, we're aware there are many who need to run from history, but even still, the twentieth century presents its own problem, and if you can't transcend the twenty-first, you're running from history.

When you consistently project delusion and hyperbolic shaming, people notice.

Well, you know ...

And its always focused on the females's perspective too. What about my perspective?

... you did ask.

Petty abusive ad hom.

Again—

Why would I want to marry a woman who talks like you do honestly? What about my perspective?

—you did ask.

Pointless fluff of no substance.

In the one case, there's not much to work with. And the other comes in multiple parts, so, I don't know, maybe it confused you?

You offered a perfect example of the problem when suggesting you are doing women a favor, and yet another with your bizarre "Because" trip:

Because physical, attraction, females are inherently physically attractive and so they are inherently more valuable to males and society and that is the advantage they possess, even the fat, uglies can go on fetlife put on some makeup and get a legion of followers catering to their every need.

Have you idea how much misogyny is actually vagina envy?

Angry feminist throwing out random accusations which in this case aren't even remotely true.

Because you have no self-interest in your point, are not constructing from fallacy, and rely on human qualities not necessarily materially defined.

If anything, I was accusing women of objectifying men, by only valuing them as a money object.

This is the world men made; this is what men wanted—

(Hint: There is a lot of commentary on this point that has nothing to do with incels complaining about not being provided girlfriends. Hey, do you live in a dope state? →Click this link↱← and smoke a bowl; there's even a dog metaphor, but it doesn't have anything to do with humping old ladies↗, or anything, and that's actually part of the point.)​

—and as humanity emerges from that obscene disaster, masculine pretenses of relying on the bulging pants need to just go away, because we've gone from wallet and dick to carping about wallet and dick to a bunch of diaperload bawling. Even in the height of hay fever season when some people can't smell a damn thing, they can still otherwise discern the need to stay away from certain messes. And something about Freud↑ goes here, like whether incels need to be provided girlfriend, wet nurse, or mother, and which among them still retain such faculties as to comprehend the difference.

Cause' im ending their scheme of money laundering and holding men hostage with sex, in exchange for financial compensation.

Go ahead and smash the patriarchy, but women aren't going to rebuild it for you.

More whining and hyperbolic nonsense. I painted a metaphorical story about a man providing room and board to a woman. Yet somehow this "objectifies" women.

Well, you know—

In the real world when you live with someone you have certain consideration, mainly how much some one will cost in terms of room and board, and how much do you enjoy that person to pay for their room and board.

—go ahead and make that pitch: Go ahead and invite the woman of your affection to move in with you, but tell her in that moment that you expect to measure her cost in how much you enjoy her.

Weren't you going on about prostitution, earlier?

You want a hooker, go get one. And no, society isn't going to provide you one of these workers; you need to go find one and obtain their services for your own self.

Meanwhile, do you think it will be easier to go to court and evict her for not fucking you frequently or well enough, or to simply divorce her? You're describing marriage as it existed for most of the prior century.

I am actually. Every time I think a man is gay, he actually admits to me that he is gay.

See, the easy line here is to point out that you seem to hang out with a lot of queers while advocating a really weird reiteration of enforced binary sexuality.

The more complicated line is to tell you to stop hurting yourself and just come out, already.

[cont.]​

 

[Tiassa]

[3/3]​

So me posting the facts, makes me superficial. Posting the facts means I have an attitude problem.

Posting make-believe is not the same as facts. Posting self-centered make-believe is indeed superficial. Angrily posting self-centered make-believe in order to beg people's attention is an attitude problem. Seriously, follow your makeup bit back to the topic post; "makeup can hide certain forms of ugliness" might seem something of a truism, but it's also your cover for running away from having to answer for your own argument. Eventually you just come up with post hoc bullshit like, "They aren't talking about anything. They just post narcissistic selfies and get comments."

If a Nazi flaws out flaws in the Jew religion, or flaws in the gene code of semetic ancestry, then the facts are the facts (that is, if they truly are facts).

Interestingly, you got it in the parenthetic note. Too bad you preceded that quote by dismissing the point as irrelevant. See, the thing is that if the "Nazi [points] out the flaws in the Jew religion, or flaws in the gene code of semetic [sic] ancestry", we're going to check the presuppositions, and review the data. (Hint: Both the points you suggested are subjective measures.)

Just like if Eliot Rodger points out flaws in the dating system ....

Yeah, y'know ... see, we've reviewed the presuppositions and found them lacking. There is no useful support data to review.

Not sure how to answer, as you are vague as per usual.

As Homer once expressed, "Do I have to draw you a diagram?"

Maybe because, your question was vague as per usual ...

... You never specified any of these things.

Here, think of it this way: You said, "If gender roles were reversed, and men had sex with women...but demanded women pay men to have sex with them...would that make any sense?"

Part of the reason the question of how men and women have sex with each other is important involves the question of why who pays for what. And in that context, it's absolutely ridiculous that you would sit here and bawl so loudly about something you don't actually understand.

Meanwhile:

• Has anyone ever gone to a hospital seeking medical treatment for internal injuries inflicted by your penis?

• Have you ever "accidentally" choked your partner to unconsciousness in heated passion while dorsally mounted?

• Have you ever "unintentionally" opened your partner's forehead or lip driving their head into the furniture while bangin' away?​

Oh, right. Sorry.

Anyway, what was that you were saying? "If gender roles were reversed, and men had sex with women...but demanded women pay men to have sex with them...would that make any sense?"

Whatever.

Still, yes, there is as I noted, a point at which it makes sense; the problem, though, is that it raises a certain question about men only learning to fuck properly if paid to do so. In truth, if men haven't figured it out, yet, paying them won't help.

People like you make a certain label sound dangerous, just as you go around accusing me of being "dangerous".

Actually, incels make themselves sound dangerous↗; that's part of the point.

Very similar to how racists go around demonizing all blacks and calling them dangerous.

Honestly, if you want people to believe you're not smart enough to tell the difference between one's skin color and your choice to adopt a political identity, well, okay, I admit there are plenty who will take you up on that point. More practically, though, bullshit, the biggest stupidity is the choice to posture yourself as so damnably stupid.

Or how you go around demonizing all males and blaming them for all the worlds problems.

Well, you know, either not getting enough satisfactory sexual gratification from women who fail to disappoint a man's aesthetics just isn't the whole of all the world's problems, or we need to find a way to blame men for the white woman making slanty eyes at the Korean-American man ... oh. Well, yeah, why doesn't that Korean-American man who served in the military go the fuck back to China? See? It's his fault.

(chortle!)

Involuntary celibate is a fact, whether or not you identify as it or not.

To a certain degree.

Involuntary starving is a fact, but I do not include under its rubric the notable lack of pizza just magically appearing on my desk. To the other, it's true society will eventually try to feed people. To the beeblebrox, women aren't Canadian bacon.

Furthermore, if you can't be bothered to learn to cook, yes, there will be some hungry nights.

If you are a human, and dont wish to identify as a human, then you are delusional.
With transsexuals it's a little bit different, because they actively want to transform their bodies and escape their bodies.
With incels the identity revolves around the inability to escape the identity they hate.
So there are similarities, but key differences.

If the reason one is "incel" relies on some conspiratorial bit about how society hates males, or whatever, you're not an incel, but, rather, a volcel.

You need to learn to be able to deal with people. Do you understand nobody can be obliged to your enjoyment? That's a key difference right there: Society cannot provide you girlfriends. And, honestly, like I said, behavior can make a man physically unattractive.

Yours and a small segment of hysterical societies idea of a word, maybe, but it is no different than racists.
For example, racists will twist a word to mean something else, for example, black means watermelon.
Incel, means evil.
That is how hysterical groups such as yourself twist words around.

Can you figure out that when we had to deal with white supremacists who called themselves "Aryan", most white Americans were smart enough to not identify as "Aryan" unless they were declaring in tha tfight.

This is another basic difference you really ought to be capable of figuring out: When a white supremacist says "black means rapist, criminal, or watermelon", that is a white supremacist talking about someone else. When incels raise the identity of violence and revolution, that's incels talking about themselves. Society tried not taking the incel movement seriously, and a bunch of people are dead because of that. Now incels have attention and we're not surprised to encounter this pathetic flock who want to talk the talk but pretend otherwise.

A flat out lie, when did I ever say to purge heterosexual men?
You are out right delusional at this point.

You're the one who invoked a "binary 'us vs. them' thought and feminist man-blaming delusion". Do you know what "binary" means?

Your "binary 'us vs. them' thought and feminist man-blaming delusion" is your own straw man; if it was true, the other part of the binary set—i.e., those other elements of society—then there would be actual evidence of it.

More personal insults and abuse. But as a male, I'm expected to sit idly by and take it, especially if the abuse is given of course by a woman of authority.

Wow, you couldn't even answer the question.

Should we record that as unwilling, or unable?

But keep repeating the dogma that women are gods, holy pure and all that is good of the world.
I think that is what upsets these women. That I do not worship them and I am the devil of their godhood, I blaspheme against their holy name.

If, in the moment, I don't argue about whether women's beer fart stink just as bad as a man's or worse, it might have something to do with not giving a damn, or it might have something to do with the priority of some dude up on the dinner table shitting in the alfredo. And if he wishes to justify himself that his sister farted and Christ almighty does it stink, people's focus on the infliction of biohazard and forced hunger alike as they scramble to clean up the mess and figure out how to feed the people whose meal he just ruined does not in any way constitute any particular hatred of men.

To the other, your obsession is bound to creep some people out.

The most extreme male is a festering pile of rage and uncontrollable sexual and violent urges.
However, most males are not this way, the rational man is more controlled and has more morality than those absurdist males you portray in those ridiculous rock videos.

Most males don't waste their time making their sexual ineptitude into a political platform.

But at the same time, people like you want to strip males of it completely, turn them into complacent slaves who have no agency of their own, slaves waiting on female love that will never come.

It is, even now, at least slightly astonishing when ostensible men try this line, because its formulaic effect is the argument that men are complacent slaves who have no agency of their own if they ... what, aren't provided satisfactory girlfriends? Stop denigrating men like that.

When the world is ran by female narcissists, expect to get discarded for defying the gods. Of course what female narcissist would want to tolerate any views which defy the notion that she is a holy god?

I'll worry about it when these mythical female narcissists have a realistic shot at running the world.

[fin]​

 

[TheFrogger]

I don't want women. I want A woman. ☺

 

[Neddy Bate]

From the OP:

Fact.

Fact. That is the same argument people say to...

Fact. While this is true, what does it mean?

No offense intended, but I do not think this style of writing helps your case. Just stating "fact" before writing something else is like putting the cart before the horse. You are putting the conclusion before the premise. This is just my opinion, and only meant to help in a constructive way.

 

[Seattle]

From the OP:



No offense intended, but I do not think this style of writing helps your case. Just stating "fact" before writing something else is like putting the cart before the horse. You are putting the conclusion before the premise. This is just my opinion, and only meant to help in a constructive way.

Do you think it strengthens an argument to write "Period!" after an argument? Or perhaps, " 'Nuff said!"?