73
posted ago by BrainJuice ago by BrainJuice +74 / -1

It really has very little to do with men "being owed sex" by women. Most men don't really believe they're owed sex by women, or anyone for that matter. The big issue is that society has placed such an emphasis on premarital sex and random hookups and casual sex that young men are beginning to feel like if they aren't having sex they are missing out on an integral part of life, which is not the case.

Sure, there are definitely men out there who truly believe that women are simply there to please them and be their slaves, but that is not the case for the vast majority of men, even so-called incels. They have simply been led to believe that sex is an amazing, huge part of life, that it is integral to a normal life and, while it is important to a healthy relationship, it's not necessary to live a normal life.

It also comes back, in a way, to the destruction of traditional masculinity. If they can convince millions of men that sex is the only thing that matters, that it is the most important part of a relationship and of life, then that's all they're going to care about. They're not going to focus on other things such as learning new skills or trade or bettering themselves in some other way.

Of course, the funny part of all this is that by convincing men that sex is the only thing that matters, they are completely reducing women to only being important in a sexual way. Although, I suppose that's part of the plan too. After all, we can't have women being motherly figures or caring individuals in a household or in life in general. We have to have them choose careers that debase them and destroy their mental well-being. It really is all connected I guess. The destruction of the family unit, the destruction of traditional masculinity, the destruction of traditional femininity, the sexualization of children... It really does circle back to the destruction of traditional values in a way that lets them swoop in and replace traditional morality with some sort of perverted new age "progressive" morality.

Anyway, that's my $0.02

Comments (111)
sorted by:
43
Gideon-Syme 43 points ago +43 / -0

The sexual Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

14
TerpenoidTester 14 points ago +15 / -1

Sadly it goes back further then that, empowering women was the beginning of the end.

28
Ahaus667 28 points ago +29 / -1

Counter argument- the 19th amendment killed society. When you give children the right to vote they will always vote themselves candy for dinner.

5
BrainJuice [S] 5 points ago +6 / -1

I think the problem comes from the fact that society has turned a lot of women into children. It really has little to do with women voting. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that idea. There are plenty of women who have rejected what society is pushing on them in the form of hookup culture and reduced morals, and vote in accordance with that rejection of these new societal norms.

1
Ahaus667 1 point ago +3 / -2

There are plenty of women who have rejected what society is pushing on them in the form of hookup culture and reduced morals, and vote in accordance with that rejection of these new societal norms.

You just said incels exist because there are not plenty of women, which is it?

6
FuckGenderPolitics 6 points ago +6 / -0

There are plenty of women. They just want nothing to do with a large portion of men because they all feel entitled to a top 20% man. Hence the incel problem. But yes, the 19th created these problems and made them impossible to fix.

4
Ahaus667 4 points ago +4 / -0

There are plenty of women.

Yes there are a large population of women, the argument is there is not a large population of women who would marry their societal equivalent. In fact, that population is essentially non-existant.

3
FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, I got you. That was a tongue in cheek comment. I agree with you. Incels are the result of unrestrained female hypergamy.

-13
AntonioOfVenice -13 points ago +1 / -14

Are you supposed to be very mature?

16
Ahaus667 16 points ago +16 / -0

Are you saying women have equivalent social responsibilities?

-11
AntonioOfVenice -11 points ago +2 / -13

Equal, no. Equivalent, yes - at least in traditional society.

No answer, very interesting.

This rage of yours, where does it come from? You spout the most retarded crap and then congratulate yourself on coming up with rhetorical gems. Don't get me wrong, it's pretty funny. But I'm pretty sure you're not well.

14
Ahaus667 14 points ago +14 / -0

Can you show me any equivalency on the demand on men and women historically? It’s funny, I don’t remember women being forced by the government to birth two kids. If you’re asking about your “maturity” question, asking a subjective question that you will intentionally attack regardless is well… typical of you. Then again, if you want to play by a set definition of maturity, I would love to stack up against you.

-2
AntonioOfVenice -2 points ago +4 / -6

Can you show me any equivalency on the demand on men and women historically?

Sure. Men risk their lives in war, women in childbirth. Men take care of public affairs, women of private affairs. Men work on the farms, women produce domestically. For hunter gatherers, men hunt and women gather.

I don’t remember women being forced by the government to birth two kids.

Talking about traditional society. Right now, women are a favored class of the ruling group, while having none of the traditional responsibilities.

If you’re asking about your “maturity” question, asking a subjective question that you will intentionally attack regardless is well… typical of you.

They're onto me.

Then again, if you want to play by a set definition of maturity, I would love to stack up against you.

I don't go around raving about a "female subjugation fetish" and imagining myself to be incredibly clever.

I rest my case.

13
Ahaus667 13 points ago +14 / -1

Sure. Men risk their lives in war, women in childbirth. Men take care of public affairs, women of private affairs. Men work on the farms, women produce domestically. For hunter gatherers, men hunt and women gather.

So women were at equal risk? This is adorable.

Sure. Men risk their lives in war, women in childbirth. Men take care of public affairs, women of private affairs. Men work on the farms, women produce domestically. For hunter gatherers, men hunt and women gather.

Name one government in western society that had enforced childbirth laws in its history.

I don't go around raving about a "female subjugation fetish" and imagining myself to be incredibly clever.

No you imagine yourself clever by engaging in sophistry and subjective questions.

-6
AntonioOfVenice -6 points ago +2 / -8

So women were at equal risk? This is adorable.

Of what? Death? It depends on the time-period - probably not during the Napoleonic Wars. On average, women were probably more at risk of childbirth than men were of war (nor were wars risk-free for women).

But don't let that deter you from posting absolute crap. You'd have nothing to say.

Name one government in western society that had enforced childbirth laws in its history.

I think you meant to quote the second part. It's a red herring, of course, and I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. That there's no such thing as social responsibility if there's this specific law? You can do better than that sure, surely.

No you imagine yourself clever by engaging in sophistry and subjective questions.

Not really. Nor do I go bragging everywhere, in unrelated threads, CHECK OUT HOW I ABSOLUTELY EMBARRASSED Ahaus667! But you do say stuff like "as I always say", as if you're incredible proud of it. Not gonna lie, I'd feel embarrassed for years if I had said anything close to that.

4
current_horror 4 points ago +4 / -0

Women do the things that are leftover after men have taken all the difficult and dangerous jobs. That isn’t “equivalent” labor.

Here’s an example. In video game development, coders are overwhelmingly male while HR, community management, and (increasingly) writing and art design are overwhelmingly female. Is this because women are better than men at these jobs? No. It’s because the company has to hit a gender quota, and the only way they can even come close is if they reserve all of the comfortable, easy, make-work jobs for women.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about traditional society.

9
ImThrowing4U 9 points ago +9 / -0

I'd think anyone participating on this site would have the basic ability to understand that women are lesser than men which is why we've had to control them for thousands of years.

3
FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

The main problem is that their bad choices aren't compatible with maintaining a civilization. Letting them vote makes it impossible to prevent those bad choices.

-1
AntonioOfVenice -1 points ago +5 / -6

Is there a statement to that effect by the creator of KiA2? I'd be interested.

Lesser in what respect? And it's ironic that you repeat feminist talking points that women and only women were 'controlled', when traditional society places restraints on both women and men.

20
Smith1980 20 points ago +20 / -0

Do you think that ties in to the whole “nice guy” thing that you hear women rage about? I remember endless articles telling men that being nice doesn’t mean a woman owes you sex and talked about how manipulative nice guys are. Although it’s confusing because the attractive guy who gets in a woman’s pants and then leaves can be manipulative too but they don’t seem to complain about that.

But good post. Makes a lot of sense

18
BrainJuice [S] 18 points ago +18 / -0

I personally think the whole "nice guy" thing is a two-fold issue. For example, women have been taught that if a guy is excessively nice to her or good to her that he's after something (sex is what they're told), to not trust him. The other side of the coin, is that guys have been told being nice to women doesn't mean they owe you something. But it's nature for a guy to be nice to a woman that he's interested in, which would, hopefully and traditionally, result in a relationship of some sort. That's the basis of courting and courtship in human beings. The problem, once again, is that we're taught that sex is what most people desire. It's really not what most people desire. What most people desire is a meaningful relationship of some sort, companionship.

Now, if you throw in guys actually listening to the advice women are given about nice guys only wanting sex from them, you end up with men who truly believe that, "Hey if I do want sex from this woman I just need to be nice to her" or "If I'm being nice to her that means I secretly desire to have sex with her." It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It used to be that the "thing" men wanted from women for being nice to them was relationship. Like I said before, that's the end goal of courtship, which is ultimately two people being nice to each other because they're interested in each other. It's usually started by one person, the man.

13
Smith1980 13 points ago +13 / -0

In high school I remember being so confused because women would pound into my head that women liked nice guys but then I’d see the same women date a guy who was the opposite of what she claimed she wanted. But you broke it down very well.

11
ernsithe 11 points ago +11 / -0

People never describe themselves, they describe the idealized self-image they have of themselves.

"Healthy eating is important to me," says the guy who subsists on nothing but Hot Pockets. He's not even lying. In his own head, he thinks healthy eating is important to him. He'll even give helpful advice to others. It just... happens to get overlooked every time he's selecting food for himself.

Very few, if any people, have a realistic understanding of themselves.

8
BrainJuice [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yep. When you've been taught that all nice guys are creeps who just want to get into your pants, suddenly the guys that are jerks to you come across as the ones who are genuine and sincere and not weirdos.

6
FuckGenderPolitics 6 points ago +6 / -0

It's more that they find assholes attractive regardless of what they say. But nice guy vs asshole is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. It's whether the guy has the genetics to be in the Chad zone that's really important. Personality only matters on the margins. Men have been sold a false bill of goods in that respect.

1
MattTheBlack 1 point ago +1 / -0

I purposefully treat women I am not interested in like they are men so I can avoid the bullshit of you're nice to me so you must be flirting

1
JustHereForTheSalmon 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the "nice guy" grew out of a surface-level observation the mess that dating culture had turned into and trying to make sense of it all.

"Why is she going out with that violent criminal? I'm a nice guy. He just makes her cry and I would treat her well."

What the surface-level observation won't tell you is that pornography -- which is now celebrating it's victory for over 30 years from any kind of restraint from exposure to children and has used the opportunity to drop the facade and transition from nude pinups into completely depraved hedonistic hardcore explicitness -- teaches young girls that the bad boys are exciting, they'll give her what her body craves, and that emotions don't matter in coupling.

She's not skipping over the nice guy because the nice guy is a bad mate, she's skipping over the nice guy because she's been sold a lie that the destructive one is better.

This is akin to fast food. Kids will never ask their parents for real, traditional and nutritious food. They'll ask for what was advertised to them, so juiced up in processing and unnatural flavors that the real thing doesn't stand a chance.

Oh, and, before this is treated as some anti-woman whatever, in all of this, the PUA guys who take advantage of this to get their dicks wet also bare responsibility. An explicitly sexualized society may have cracked open the shells, but these guys are using these cracks to rip open the whole thing. Destroying other people for your 15 seconds of bliss is peak evil.

6
current_horror 6 points ago +6 / -0

This is retarded. Women aren’t attracted to bad boys because porn told them to be attracted to bad boys. Women are attracted to bad boys because they signal tons of fitness traits in the forms of targeted violence and alpha behavior. These things are happening in a woman’s lizard brain, so she isn’t making any conscious decision. She’s just getting wet for sociopaths because that’s how lots of women are wired.

10
FuckGenderPolitics 10 points ago +10 / -0

The problem is listening to what women say that instead of watching what they do. If they actually wanted a nice guy there wouldn't be an entire sub on the pedo site dedicated to mocking them.

2
ApexVeritas 2 points ago +2 / -0

True. The sexual dimorphism of humans means we fulfill different roles. Men are the protectors and providers, evolving to be bigger, stronger, and more logical, who do the dangerous tasks far from home and tribe. Women are the mothers and homemakers, evolving wider hips, breasts, more empathetic and emotional, who do the safer tasks close to home and tribe, like raising and feeding the children and taking care of the home. This is the entire basis for marriage. One man and one woman come together to form a complete human that can perpetuate the species. Both sides benefit from the contract, exchanging favors through their evolved role. The man gets exclusive breeding rights from the woman, ensuring his line will live on, and the woman gets exclusive rights to the man's protection and provision.

Since women and children are weaker than men, and women are especially vulnerable during pregnancy, men became the disposable sex, especially in conjunction with our role. We see this everywhere in society, even modern warped society, where men are still expected to drown on a sinking ship if there aren't enough life boats for everyone. "Women and children first."

In any case, this explains what each sex seeks in the opposite sex. Men pursue attractive women with wide hips and large breasts, prioritizing beauty and youth, which ensures greater success of many and healthy children. Women pursue strong and wealthy men, which ensures greater success of being protected and provided for, for herself and her children. "Nice" never enters the equation. However, most normal people will naturally be kind to the one they wish to marry and have children with. Still, modern society has warped what it means to be nice, especially with men, who are increasingly feminized and attacked, and masculinity demonized. Masculine "nice" is not the same as feminine "nice".

Men, as a matter of our nature, prioritize truth and logic first, as a means of better fulfilling our role and surviving. Women, as matter of their role, prioritize life, empathy, and emotion first, as a means of better fulfilling their role, so they, and especially their children, can better survive. As a philosophical point, truth must hold higher priority than life. This is why all groups of humans, regardless of size or pursuit, will naturally become patriarchal, as men are the ones most capable of upholding the proper priorities. Only through globalist propaganda and top down control can this be warped, for the benefit of the globalists, and to our detriment. It's a tool used to weaken and control us. Women can be swayed with logical fallacies, especially appeals to emotion, popularity, and authority, which globalists always use to sway "public opinion". This explains the voting demographics by sex.

Modern "nice" being taught to men is having all of warped degenerate society, and women, walking all over us and using us, as little more than slaves, having government and globalism replace our role, attack masculinity, and attack men, while simultaneously they take up the role of protector and provider for modern corrupted women, but yet in a modern relationship, often childless and meaningless, the man must still make more money than the woman and be the traditional protector and provider, and yet, all men must somehow be okay with this, because we're supposed to be "nice". This is one of the main reasons why modern women have become so picky in the dating markets. How can any one man compete with tyrannical government and globalism?

Modern globalist society isn't just degenerate, it's completely opposite of the natural order, antithetical to our entire evolved nature and the true philosophical foundations of what it means to succeed, survive, and thrive. This is why every aspect of modern globalist society is crumbling and destroying itself. Lies cannot persist forever.

8
current_horror 8 points ago +8 / -0

Women decide if a nice guy is “creepy” or not based on whether they want to fuck him or not. That’s it. Everything else is window dressing.

1
Smith1980 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sadly I didn’t learn this til my early 20s

7
novanleon 7 points ago +7 / -0

The "nice guy" phenomena is just women being terrible at understanding -- or living in denial of -- their own nature.

Women never wanted a "nice guy". Women want men that they respect and admire, who take control and take responsibility, who can protect and provide. Even so, women have trouble admitting this because it makes them look bad in the eyes of modern feminist society, and looking bad to others is the worst thing from a woman's perspective. This is why women tend to be conformists and follow the culture much more obediently than men do.

3
Smith1980 3 points ago +3 / -0

That’s true and I used to be very shy with women. Although I generally have seen young girls go wild for the bad boy and then in their 30s want a responsible guy. Although by then they usually have kids

6
novanleon 6 points ago +6 / -0

I think young women see most of the qualities they value in a “bad guy” and are driven by their natural impulses without actually having the ability to judge good character, or having the wisdom to understand the hazard of giving yourself to someone of bad character.

We’re talking about natural impulses here… but for most human civilizations throughput history, women’s partners — and sometimes men’s as well — were determined by their parents or by another third party. This used the wisdom of adults to filter out the bad eggs ahead of time. The truth is, young women are absolutely terrible at picking the right partners. Men too, to some degree, but men don’t have anywhere near the number of options that women do at that age, so it’s less of an issue.

3
FuckGenderPolitics 3 points ago +3 / -0

young girls go wild for the bad boy and then in their 30s want a responsible guy

It's not so much that they want to the responsible guy. It's that by then they've finally figured out that Chad will never commit and they need someone to pay for all their bad decisions. MGTOW is such a threat to them because it raises the spectre that they'll be deprived of their meal ticket and they'll actually have to face the consequences of their actions.

3
current_horror 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s not that either. Slutty women “settle down” in their 30s because high value men no longer want to fuck them. That’s it. If an 8 could stay an 8 forever, she’d never get off the cock carousel.

Now a slurry.m woman might see her expulsion coming and take steps to secure her landing years before the wall, but that doesn’t mean she had a genuine change of heart. She was just quitting before the dating market fired her.

-3
AntonioOfVenice -3 points ago +4 / -7

Well, to be fair, you wouldn't mind about a very hot girl trying to get in your pants, but if it were a 400 pound Jabba the Hutt/Trigglypuff-kind creature, you'd do your best to run faster than she can roll.

9
Smith1980 9 points ago +9 / -0

I get that but I’ve seen “chads” use the same tactics that they cry about the nice guys using. Of course it comes down to looks. Like a hot guy telling a woman she looks great and an ugly guy who says it turns into a creep

-5
AntonioOfVenice -5 points ago +3 / -8

Right, but I mean that it's not unjustified. You'd be freaked out out of your mind if a hideous fat woman was hitting on you in a forward manner, but not so if it's a drop-dead gorgeous woman.

6
Smith1980 6 points ago +6 / -0

True but the fat woman isn’t creepy. I remember my female cousin once said a creepy guy was trying to talk to her and I asked was he really creepy or was he just a guy you didn’t find attractive. She admitted that she wasn’t attracted to him. Like you said I’d do the same but I hope I wouldn’t see the fat woman as a creep.

-2
AntonioOfVenice -2 points ago +2 / -4

True but the fat woman isn’t creepy.

Oh, I beg to differ. When she starts flirting, it's horrifying beyond belief.

I remember my female cousin once said a creepy guy was trying to talk to her and I asked was he really creepy or was he just a guy you didn’t find attractive. She admitted that she wasn’t attracted to him.

Interesting. Did she also admit that this was the reason she labeled him as creepy? Because I can imagine that it can also work the other way around. If you find a guy creepy, obviously he's not going to be attractive to you.

3
Smith1980 3 points ago +3 / -0

Once she thought about it she realized he didn’t seem like a bad person but just a guy she wasn’t attracted to. I’m average liking at best so women approaching me is a rarity of it happens at all but my point was that I agree with you but if a big woman like you describe approached me to flirt I’d like to think that o wouldn’t think her a bad or creepy person simply for not being attractive to me

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +2 / -1

Creepy is not necessarily a bad person! If women approached men as often as the other way around, I think men would have similar complaints as well. Maybe less because of the difference in physical strength.

I'm not as easily scared by someone who can't physically overpower me.

6
ernsithe 6 points ago +6 / -0

you'd do your best to run faster than she can roll.

And now the Indiana Jones theme is stuck in my head. Thanks asshole.

12
BrainJuice [S] 12 points ago +12 / -0

Addendum: in a way it feels like the book "Brave New World", where society has become based on hedonism and pleasure rather than a truly human experience.

19
acp_k2win 19 points ago +19 / -0

has become based on hedonism and pleasure rather than a truly human experience

IMO the final and most difficult redpill is realizing that was ALWAYS womens' basic behavior and only the social strictures kept those behaviors from becoming a destructive force.

You can have "women's rights" or you can have civilization, but not both.

9
BrainJuice [S] 9 points ago +9 / -0

I don't know if I entirely agree with you, though I do see where you're coming from I suppose. There are examples of societies in history that have been ruled almost entirely by men that have devolved into hedonism and ultimately collapsed as well. I think it has more to do with embracing base human needs and desires rather than understanding that, while those things are part of our life, they shouldn't rule our life.

7
acp_k2win 7 points ago +7 / -0

embracing acknowledging base human needs and desires

We accept that we are biological beings. Our interfaces with the world include sensational rewards for actions which, in pre-modernity, promoted survival and reproduction.

We (humanity) are the only animals on the planet that have the capability to choose to resist supernormal stimuli in preference to advancing toward a "higher" purpose.

It used to be that pursuing biological sensation was considered to be a "low" and "childish" purpose and was socially sanctioned against.

The public and private spheres used to be separate where the higher purposes were the focal point of the public sphere and "sins" and "weaknesses" were relegated to the private sphere, and never openly discussed. Now there is no distinction between public and private.

The marxists, or hegelians really, continue to advance their agenda of corroding all truth, beauty, and goodness in pursuit of dissolving our reality which they believe is a prison created by a false god.

1
current_horror 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like that last bit. Stealing it lol

5
yvaN_ehT_nioJ 5 points ago +5 / -0

You might find the early 20th century Oxford sociologist JD Unwin an interesting read. Though, you may have to make due with a blogpost (albeit a well-written one w/ cited sources) summarizing J.D. Unwin's writing. I still need to acquire the text the below post makes use of. (EDIT: Looks like it's up as a pdf)

https://www.kirkdurston.com/blog/unwin

Essentially, civilizations that experience a "flourishing" of sexual freedom collapse in several generations.

4
BrainJuice [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

I do think there is some merit to a little bit of sexual freedom in a society, but as with most things in life moderation is key. I think there's a saying that goes something like "make sure you have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out." For example, arranged marriage is one of the dumbest concepts I've ever heard of. No one, male or female, should be forced into a relationship simply because their parents liked the coupling. The flip side of that is that anyone, male or female, sleeping with ten different people in a week, shouldn't be viewed as some sort of free thinker or progressive role model.

I will definitely take a look at your suggestion though thanks for it.

7
cccpneveragain 7 points ago +7 / -0

I will say when I was reading that earlier this year I couldn't help but think how it was nothing but a guidebook for the leftist utopia. That it's what they want.

I will also say that's why they are all so unhappy. Their whole life is about baseless pleasure whether it be casual sex or social media likes. I've never been the most social person so it really took Covid clownery cutting me off from everything to realize that even for a quiet not-very social person like myself how much of the happy in my life was from human experience. The stuff that sticks with me as the fun points of my adult life are the personal experiences with friends, family, even random strangers. That's what I remember fondly, not the things I've seen or places I've been. Take that away like they did in 2020, and I'm an angry wreck screaming on the internet just like they are.

4
BrainJuice [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think you hit the nail on the head there. It's kind of a cliche at this point but that saying about what we have not being important but who we spend our time with being important really nails it as well. We can see the whole world and visit places that are truly awe-inspiring, but does it really matter if we don't have anyone to share those memories with, be them a friend or a spouse or family member?

4
cccpneveragain 4 points ago +4 / -0

I think people have changed too. For years now I would do like one big solo trip, the type of thing I just couldn't get other people to go along with me on. I liked it, because even though I'm not the most outgoing person I'd end up meeting interesting people in unusual places, etc. It seems like that's all but gone and people shut up and hide now and everything is designed around keeping people apart. The height of my travel fun the last couple years has been things really unexotic like camping with friends 30mins from home or hanging out with my cousin on his birthday. That's not to say I haven't tried "sights", but the last such trip I got bored and came home early.

1
BrainJuice [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I really do think that there is a concerted effort to make you untrusting of your neighbors and your friends and your fellow man. This started with the push to label anyone who believes something slightly out there or off the wall as some insane conspiracy theorist who thinks that the world is run by a lizard people, when in reality they just think that the government lies to us about stuff. Now it's turned into constant news articles about how everyone's buying guns, so you'll think that your neighbor is some psycho who's going to shoot you at the drop of a hat. Covid really exacerbated the issue too, because now they can label every individual that you don't know as some breeding ground for germs that's going to kill you and your whole family simply by being near you and giving you some horrible sickness. That's why media latches on to things like monkeypox because they can use that to further the idea.

1
MetallicBioMeat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Heard of Gizortnik theory?

The Social Justice Racket itself is a protection racket, that exists to cultivate dependent populations on the protection racket as a reliable source of both income and power to authoritarian minded personalities. Chief among these personalities are sociopaths and narcissists. Sociopaths are seeking power from populations they see as prey that deserve to be predated upon for being to weak to attack them, and narcissists are seeking to cultivate a dependent population that will constantly give them the attention and emotional affirmation that they are actually dependent on. The Sociopathic Narcissist is the predator who thrives most in the Social Justice Racket. They have the drive of affirmation that a narcissist has, but also have the ruthlessness to manipulate social environments to their advantage to cultivate that environment from their prey (or to simply cultivate normal people in to prey).

10
SoctaticMethod1 10 points ago +10 / -0

Pretty much and now the only hope for it not to end in a bloody takeover that purges many supporting this and enforces traditional values by an iron first is probably sex robots and artificial wombs.

I'm semi joking, the problem is while men are screwed by this, women are way more screwed by this (ironically), a lot of men did derive their purpose in raising a family and being the protector, if that is denied to them by the current society, they can easily nope out, survive with very little requirements and exist for themselves.

Women on the other hand, can't. Being more social they require more interaction and attention. Living a more hermit or isolated life like men would kill a lot of women so it's why incels are attacked so vigorously, they are the biggest threat. You want to present hell to a lot of women, it's men walking away refusing to interact with them than on their knees desperately seeking their affection. If my joke actually did come into fruition, you'd have less incels as they'd raise kids with a robot but a lot of old bitter women.

6
ImThrowing4U 6 points ago +6 / -0

The females would have an absolute breakdown if men somehow abandoned society.

Look at history, a females survival involves inserting herself into a males life and sphere of things to be concerned about, which is why we're always asking why can't women let us have (insert thing) and just leave us alone. They can't. It's a biological imperative. They must be on our minds at every moment.

2
SoctaticMethod1 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's why it's darkly funny, if men had access to essentially 2Bs that could use artificial wombs to reproduce, feminism, leftists would just fail overnight since men can re-adopt their original roles without the concerns or hassles.

You'll have women that can get a guy because they never adopted this destructive behaviour but on the whole you'd have the split society, those raising kids in a family unit (with a robot) and on the otherside, cities of cat ladies.....

8
BetterNameUnfound 8 points ago +8 / -0

Ever notice how the term "volcel" never caught on?

Because MGTOW already covers that.

6
BrainJuice [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

I seem to recall the term celibate was all that was needed at one point, because it was generally looked at as a choice.

5
zakat 5 points ago +5 / -0

On r/IncelTear they recently posted some of their own pictures to dunk on incels like "We are this ugly and still have sex" and when you looked at their partners you went like "Okay... I'd rather have no sex".

Most incels are volcels.

2
FuckGenderPolitics 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's a good point. One motivation for MGTOW is how low value most women are. A lot of sexless guys could get laid if they dove deep enough in the dumpster, but in the end you need to be able to get it up. It's also nice to be able to wake up the next morning without the deep sense of shame that dumpster diving gives you.

2
folx 2 points ago +2 / -0

You need to post that sometime. I am certain they're all fat lesbian dangerhairs.

4
Unknownsailor 4 points ago +4 / -0

Voicel = monk, which is the more common term I see used.

2
FuckGenderPolitics 2 points ago +2 / -0

Feminists can't use it to shame men so there was no point. They'd rather just slur Manosphere groups (or anyone who questions any aspect of the nonsense) with the incel label. I can't tell you how many times I've seen them slur MGTOW as incels even though it's mostly older guys who got fucked in divorce court (and therefore aren't incels almost by definition) teaching younger guys not to make the same mistakes they did.

7
FuckGenderPolitics 7 points ago +7 / -0

What you talk about is part of the problem, but the main way hookup culture creates incels is by giving women a grossly overinflated perception of their SMV. What happens is that Chad is willing to choose an average woman for a one night stand rather than go through a dry spell when he can't find a woman at his SMV level. This gives these women the impression that they have a chance at locking a Chad into an LTR when they don't. But they feel entitled to a Chad and consider men at their own SMV level subhuman. So they spend their best years riding the cock carousel hoping to land that Chad and refusing to accept a more realistic option. The Manosphere calls these women 49ers (4s who feel entitled to a 9). Meanwhile men outside the Chad zone have to dumpster dive to even have a chance, and a mix of disgust and pure numbers (60% of men get left out even if all the bottom 20% women pair up with bottom 80% men) means that a large number of men are locked out of the sexual market completely.

Prior to hookup culture it was different. Premarital sex wasn't an option so the Chads couldn't cycle through 80% of the women. They quickly paired up with the highest SMV women, so women lower on the SMV totem pole had a realistic idea early on of what their options were. They didn't spend 20 years Chad chasing because the Chads were off the market by the end of high school. So average men had a chance with women at their level and incels didn't exist in significant numbers.

6
Rattatata 6 points ago +6 / -0

Biggest way for men to get back to a normal relationship is to not play the online game. Don’t get on online dating apps, get off social media, and never move in together before full marriage (and get a prenup.)

4
FuckGenderPolitics 4 points ago +4 / -0

Just don't get married period. It's a one way street requires men to gamble their futures and they get nothing that they couldn't get without that risk. I agree about staying off the apps. Only Chads and thots get any utility out of the apps.

3
Xachariah 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hate to break it to you, but prenups do basically nothing. They cover the event of having significant asset disparities before the marriage, so it might matter if you're a millionaire and nothing else goes wrong in your marriage.

For everything else, almost nothing a normal man cares about is protected by a prenup. There's already Laws covering marriage on the books, and wherever the Law and a Prenup disagree, the Law invalidates a prenup (eg, alimony, child support, debt, infidelity clauses, etc.).

Do not trust a prenup to protect you.

2
BrainJuice [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think moving in together before marriage being a negative or positive is entirely dependent on how long the relationship has been going on before you move in together. I understand that it's anecdotal but I can compare my own marriage to that of a friend who's now on his second marriage. His first marriage, they had been dating for a few months at tops before they moved in together. My wife and I had been dating for several years before we moved in together and we're now happily married well over a decade. My friend, after his first marriage fell apart, bounced around between living with his mother at the age of 34 living in an apartment moving from town to town moving from job to job etc etc.

I think a better idea would be to make sure you know the person before you move in with them or try to start a long-term committed relationship with them. You can't really know someone after a few months but after a few years it's much easier to get a grasp on who the person is and how they'll react to certain situations. Again, I understand it's anecdotal but I do think there is some truth to it.

4
Rattatata 4 points ago +4 / -0

I completely agree. The biggest issue is most young people (18-29) go straight into moving in together after a month or two of dating and their partner completely changes. Moving in with someone you have known for years would be more of an exception to the rule than what is currently common.

1
ernsithe 1 point ago +1 / -0

and their partner completely changes

Isn't that the sort of thing you'd prefer to find out before the legal commitment?

2
Rattatata 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yup. Why you don’t marry (and in that course, move in with each other) until after a few years of knowing each other. Last thing any guy needs is to be in a joint lease with some psycho that destroys the apartment or rented home.

4
TheImpossible1 4 points ago +8 / -4

Incel is just a catch-all for "knows what we're doing."

They apply it to people who quote their own words, people who bring up male suicide, people who bring up what's going on in the schools and even tradcucks on the few times they get anything right.

It just means "he knows too much."

6
BrainJuice [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

You're not wrong there. But what I was talking about is the actual group of young men who would fall into the literal definition of "involuntary celibate."

-3
AntonioOfVenice -3 points ago +1 / -4

The womens have to come up with something to deny that they and they alone are responsible for male suicides!

2
FuckGenderPolitics 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, they just have to slur anyone who catches onto their bullshit. But I'd replace women with feminists myself.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

But that would be accurate.

4
Galean 4 points ago +4 / -0

I agree 100% but I'm one of those that did not like bikini armors in games. This is the problem of the entire leftist culture, for a lot of them it looks to be the most important thing about them. Is no longer about having kids, doing something worth while, having a career or even hobbies. When I see leftists being in to hobbies they just love all about X rather then having standards and knowledge about X .

However it is a great way to control 16-26 year old guys and reduce birthrates to the point the only solution is mass immigration and the death of national identity.

1
barwhack 1 point ago +1 / -0

This was called the slippery slope back when it was "a conspiracy theory", and not merely leftism in practice.

1
SomeHands10 1 point ago +1 / -0

A reasonable analysis. You've missed out one part that I think is important: convincing men that sex is the most most important symbol of "masculinity", which is where the sexual revolution led, also allows women to:

  1. Define what is "masculine" or not. Think about how much men seek to look or behave is determined by them trying to access sex.
  2. Gives them incredible power over men. Women have used sex as weapon for all time, but this behaviour is now on overdrive.

That's why sensible men should reject sexual shaming of other men outright. Yet, many men, even those who think they are red-pilled, persist. This isn't about being anti-sex, it's about reclaiming masculinity so that men get to define what is masculine or not. Letting women define masculinity leads to disaster as what they value from a man is generally very hedonistic and self-centred.

1
when_we_win_remember 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not owed sex for merely existing. The whole basis of civilization is control of women's sexuality. That doesn't mean that every guy gets a piece, but it does mean that you don't have large numbers of incels, because this is an inherently unstable situation. Crisis follows polygamy and sexual profligacy like a shadow. Civilization imposes requirements on men for access to women. And that's why it exists. If that seems like circular logic, it's because most things that exist continuous do so as a result of feedback loops.

1
Nikola_S1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Complete nonsense. Sex is integral and necessary part of life because sex creates new life.

2
BrainJuice [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

But there's a difference between sex for procreation and sex for enjoyment and pleasure. One is strictly vaginal intercourse, the other can be a myriad of things that have nothing to do with creating life. That's the one that's being pushed more on youth as so important.

-2
AntonioOfVenice -2 points ago +1 / -3

The big issue is that society has placed such an emphasis on premarital sex and random hookups and casual sex that young men are beginning to feel like if they aren't having sex they are missing out on an integral part of life, which is not the case.

That's just biology. Men need to have sex like women need to have babies. Or else it starts bugging them that they have no offspring (obviously, women can know and men cannot).

I don't disagree with your thesis though, but for different reasons. You would expect lower poverty rates as society gets richer, but you don't get that because it's compensated for by increased rates of illegitimacy.

-3
Flarisu -3 points ago +2 / -5

The sexual revolution only benefited men.

Women, typically the gatekeepers of sex, were convinced that they should go and give it out, otherwise the other girls will, causing them to compete by offering sex at higher rates. Women are now more sexual objects than before, and despite the higher amounts of sex, very promiscuous women are still stigmatized just like before the sexual revolution. It's almost like they gained nothing but sex.

Men, who have the higher sex drives, were only happy to oblige. The fact that the prediliction of some existing societal problems are based on this are oblivious to women and men. Example: Abortion is an issue between right of life or a right to choose - in reality, Abortion wouldn't be a problem if people were willing to admit that its rates are very high when value on sex is very low a la the sexual revolution. No sides (women or men) want to say to "have less extramarital sex" as a way to solve Abortion, so they keep supporting nonsolutions, like access to contraceptives or banning abortion.

But you can't let the genie out of the bottle - people are too sex-addicted to admit that sex is creating this problem and we really have to have less of it before marriage. As a married man, I can definitely say sex is very hard to turn down once you have permanent access to it - for the unmarried to get access to this benefit it is reasonable to see why they refuse to simply say that sex outside of marriage is the problem - it's very hard to turn down.