Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-1

Greyscalestarfield wrote

You can find the studies and articles about them with a quick Google.

By 'top tier men' I am referring to those considered the most desirable.

In the past, a higher percentage of handsome Dave's would be in relationships. Thus off the market. This is because social stigmas such as 'slut shaming' we're still in effect.

The prettiest girls would pair off with the prettiest boys. The medium boys with the medium girls etc.

That dynamic has changed. The medium girls now have access to the prettier boys, so aren't as interested inbred medium boys, leaving the low tier losers without a look in.

I feel that boys and girls both want sex as much as each other. So something must be at play

5

ergdj5 wrote

You can find the studies and articles about them with a quick Google.

The burden of evidence goes on those making the claim.

1

mofongo wrote

That dynamic has changed. The medium girls now have access to the prettier boys, so aren't as interested inbred medium boys, leaving the low tier losers without a look in.

a) That has always been the case.

b) Pretty women are willing to look at less attractive men as long as they're not total creeps. I've met many short (5"5' and lower), not attractive men that are great and funny persons and women just fall for them without them even trying.

c) If you're so desperate for sex, accept what you can get.

1

mofongo wrote

In the past, a higher percentage of handsome Dave's would be in relationships. Thus off the market. This is because social stigmas such as 'slut shaming' we're [sic] still in effect.

>implying cheating never existed.

>implying men get slut-shamed at the same rate or as hard as women.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

So we have to separate two things. First is whether the dynamic changed, and second whether people that lose out have a right to feel mistreated or unfairly discriminated against because of the situation. The answer to the second part is no - I could have the body of a god in a room full of gorgeous women that are all interested in banging only Jabba the Hutt, or maybe each other, and I am not being mistreated or discriminated against. Sex is never owed.

On your first point, I can't imagine there is real research on this. Check Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, your grocery store, Walmart, beaches, anywhere, and you will find a huge mix of couples of all ages. That includes tons of cases when a woman considered gorgeous by Hollywood is with a fat, unattractive, poorly muscular man or a man considered gorgeous by Hollywood is with a fat, unattractive woman. Don't get me wrong, you will often see two ugly (by conventional standards) people together or two gorgeous (again, by conventional standards) people together, but it's fantasy to break all relationships into those categories.

0

Greyscalestarfield wrote

Yes the dynamic has changed.

On your second point, I don't think it matters whether people have 'the right' to feel a certain way.

For many, the idea of having sex has become unattainable and what begins as feelings of hopelessness start to fester.

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote (edited )

"Yes the dynamic has changed" is not evidence, just a statement. And as a counter point things like personal ads, Tinder, dating sites, social networks of all kinds, sex discussion boards, and so forth came into existence in the same era as the sexual revolution and feminism started gaining power.

So when you think of the guy three generations back with medium looks having, supposedly, an easier time finding a woman than today remember that he didn't have nearly the same opportunities to meet women as men today do. He couldn't post a personal ad, he couldn't send private messages on Twitter.

But what he didn't have is message boards and other forums to discuss his frustration with other like-minded men.

Sometimes I think Dating 101 should be a mandatory part of education in the US. I'm an average looking guy. Finding a partner isn't that hard. Now, nothing is foolproof. But a lot of the incel statements come across like the writer is desperately hoping that if they walk up to the right supermodel and say "Hi" she'll immediately offer to bang him into oblivion. Attracting a sexual partner is a skill, no different than fixing a transmission, drywalling a room, reinstalling an operating system, or shooting a rifle accurately. The only difference is that the learning curve for sex and relationships is more painful because rejection hurts and you will get rejected many times. But working past the discomfort is worthwhile, just like enduring all the boredom and pain of a workout routine is worthwhile, because the end results are worth the effort.

2

raindropq wrote (edited )

this is work-normalization /economist apologetics . and appears to be validating to the (In-Cel's?) resentment .

edit: added parentheses and question mark

1

edmund_the_destroyer wrote

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying I'm inadvertently supporting incel arguments with that post?

That wasn't my intent. First and foremost, the idea that anyone is owed some kind of sex or consideration with regards to sex is flat out false. The argument over incel 'rights' ends there, period.

Second and less importantly, the argument that less than flawlessly beautiful men in previous generations had easier access to sexual partners is at best unprovable but most likely false. So even the incel's belief they have a special right to whine if not act still doesn't hold up.