Inceldom goes so much deeper than simply 'not getting laid' it's the feeling of being absolutely rejected by society and feeling like they're too ugly to even be noticed by women.
The Black Pill. That is probably my biggest disagreement with the "incel community". Most of these guys aren't that ugly, they're just socially awkward & lack charisma at the bare minimum, also some may be lacking in the money department to even do a cheap first date.
Society will tell you "women are equal to men" but if you're a man having trouble geting dates, they will tell you "you need to learn to talk to women" as if women are different than men, society is only right on the 2nd part because they're wrong on the 1st part.
Saying the right things, the right way (with confidence & no social awkwardness) wows a woman. A woman needs to be wow'd to even want to give an above average guy a chance, much less an average guy or below average guy. Women aren't as visual as men, and will generally only note a guy's looks on the extreme ends of handsome & ugly. By extreme end of ugly, I mean has a birth defect or was in a major accident, not just "really ugly".
The thing that makes them truly an incel, is the psychologically poisoned response of defeatism and resentment where they've stewed in their madness so thoroughly that they can't even be asked to try to improve themselves. That's what actually makes them so toxic. I can't tolerate someone who is dedicated to destroying themselves and taking others with them.
I've even gone on here to explain that the mentality of "no man below a 4 is capable of being in a relationship with a woman, even with a six figure salary" is both reductive, not based in evidence, and simple defeatism. My normal citation is that I have a married friend who is a 1 and he married a 1. That's entirely normal. People actually pair bond to similar attractiveness. There's a lot more women who are getting run through, and some that are taking i polygyny; but your average unattractive woman doesn't have more than a couple sexual partners a year, if that. It's true, they just don't want to get it.
There will always be a small minority of men and an significantly lower minority of women who will be single and childless through their lives. If I recall from a Norwegian study, around 25% of men are childless at 40 compared to 15% of women. Was the case prior to the Internet and will be the case forever more. These people are simply not capable of finding partners, a significant proportion of which is genetic or medical and can't be fixed by telling them to "lift" or "touch grass". The only difference now is that prior to the Internet, these people would keep themselves to themselves at home and would not communicate with other like minded people, which they can now do online and worldwide, that equates to many millions of people.
First I think those numbers are way to high. 25% of men being childless doesn't sound like it would fit in any environment except the modern one. That is an extreme number, and normally, it would lead to massive population loss. The real numbers are probably both well below 10%. In earlier epochs, being childless was genuinely abnormal and rare. Even the Boomers would have told you that number was high. This is why when we see stats from Japan saying 40% of men under 35 haven't had a sexual partner is catastrophic. That is an extreme aberration that is not replicated at any other point in human history. Same with the suicide rate among young adults. It's telling when a modern western man meets with an isolated tribal people, and that those people have almost never heard of suicide, and find it unfathomable.
Second, most of these people who were childless did not just isolate themselves at home, that is a also sickness of post-modernity. (Not even modernity was that bad).
Many of those childless people would have been productive members of society in one way or another: men who worked remote and on the fringes of society who could not settle down due to the work: like pioneers, explorers, sailing merchants, etc. Many of them would have been deeply involved in other work that would be otherwise relatively self-isolating, but community supporting: monks, priests, craftsmen, fishermen, truckers, etc. Except for the monks, prostitutes actually had a moderately wholesome role of being a kind of mimic to those more isolated men who couldn't settle down and raise a family due to the circumstances of their work. I remember an NPR documentary covering over a strip-club that was in a pretty remote part of Minnesota. Most of the clientele were truckers who were older and quite well behaved. This includes more than one of them dropping off a full turkey... to the strip club. It was an attempt to mimic something akin to a family due to circumstances. They would not have been "incels", or even really sexless at all.
This is a far more serious pathology of the modern era.
But there have always been individuals who contribute to society but remain alone. The loneliness epidemic is novel but life-long lonely people have always been a thing.
There's a video yesterday by Wheat Waffles who is one of the prominent voices around the black pill (spoiler alert - the black pill is more aligned to what evolutionary psychologists are finding about human nature because mating and nature is brutal and doesn't care about your feelings) where he provides a paid service rating men's looks with university students.
One of his conclusions was that women will reject you for one fundamental flaw as opposed to doing a cost/benefit analysis to see if you would be a net positive or negative. Which makes sense as women (even older, unattractive women) have lots of options and the majority of men have little to none.
One of his other conclusion is that if you're average looking (not that ugly) or below, he may as well have rated them as zero. The women he asked wanted nothing to do with these men and subsequently that equates to zero, rather than the 1-9 scale he used.
The Black Pill. That is probably my biggest disagreement with the "incel community". Most of these guys aren't that ugly, they're just socially awkward & lack charisma at the bare minimum, also some may be lacking in the money department to even do a cheap first date.
Society will tell you "women are equal to men" but if you're a man having trouble geting dates, they will tell you "you need to learn to talk to women" as if women are different than men, society is only right on the 2nd part because they're wrong on the 1st part.
Saying the right things, the right way (with confidence & no social awkwardness) wows a woman. A woman needs to be wow'd to even want to give an above average guy a chance, much less an average guy or below average guy. Women aren't as visual as men, and will generally only note a guy's looks on the extreme ends of handsome & ugly. By extreme end of ugly, I mean has a birth defect or was in a major accident, not just "really ugly".
And for all the "tolerance" they preach, when it comes down to it, they sure aren't very tolerant to men who have social anxiety, autism, etc.
The thing that makes them truly an incel, is the psychologically poisoned response of defeatism and resentment where they've stewed in their madness so thoroughly that they can't even be asked to try to improve themselves. That's what actually makes them so toxic. I can't tolerate someone who is dedicated to destroying themselves and taking others with them.
I've even gone on here to explain that the mentality of "no man below a 4 is capable of being in a relationship with a woman, even with a six figure salary" is both reductive, not based in evidence, and simple defeatism. My normal citation is that I have a married friend who is a 1 and he married a 1. That's entirely normal. People actually pair bond to similar attractiveness. There's a lot more women who are getting run through, and some that are taking i polygyny; but your average unattractive woman doesn't have more than a couple sexual partners a year, if that. It's true, they just don't want to get it.
There will always be a small minority of men and an significantly lower minority of women who will be single and childless through their lives. If I recall from a Norwegian study, around 25% of men are childless at 40 compared to 15% of women. Was the case prior to the Internet and will be the case forever more. These people are simply not capable of finding partners, a significant proportion of which is genetic or medical and can't be fixed by telling them to "lift" or "touch grass". The only difference now is that prior to the Internet, these people would keep themselves to themselves at home and would not communicate with other like minded people, which they can now do online and worldwide, that equates to many millions of people.
I disagree.
First I think those numbers are way to high. 25% of men being childless doesn't sound like it would fit in any environment except the modern one. That is an extreme number, and normally, it would lead to massive population loss. The real numbers are probably both well below 10%. In earlier epochs, being childless was genuinely abnormal and rare. Even the Boomers would have told you that number was high. This is why when we see stats from Japan saying 40% of men under 35 haven't had a sexual partner is catastrophic. That is an extreme aberration that is not replicated at any other point in human history. Same with the suicide rate among young adults. It's telling when a modern western man meets with an isolated tribal people, and that those people have almost never heard of suicide, and find it unfathomable.
Second, most of these people who were childless did not just isolate themselves at home, that is a also sickness of post-modernity. (Not even modernity was that bad).
Many of those childless people would have been productive members of society in one way or another: men who worked remote and on the fringes of society who could not settle down due to the work: like pioneers, explorers, sailing merchants, etc. Many of them would have been deeply involved in other work that would be otherwise relatively self-isolating, but community supporting: monks, priests, craftsmen, fishermen, truckers, etc. Except for the monks, prostitutes actually had a moderately wholesome role of being a kind of mimic to those more isolated men who couldn't settle down and raise a family due to the circumstances of their work. I remember an NPR documentary covering over a strip-club that was in a pretty remote part of Minnesota. Most of the clientele were truckers who were older and quite well behaved. This includes more than one of them dropping off a full turkey... to the strip club. It was an attempt to mimic something akin to a family due to circumstances. They would not have been "incels", or even really sexless at all.
This is a far more serious pathology of the modern era.
23% of men at 45 and 13% of women at 45 in Norway in 2013. I've seen similar numbers for other countries. And the trend is steadily upwards.
https://sciencenorway.no/childlessness-fathers-forskningno/a-quarter-of-norwegian-men-never-father-children/1401047
Just under a quarter of US men and just under 16% of US women according to a 2014 report.
https://apnews.com/article/c61402fa463b4406a9eccad079fc49df
It isn't the norm but it is not rare.
But there have always been individuals who contribute to society but remain alone. The loneliness epidemic is novel but life-long lonely people have always been a thing.
There's a video yesterday by Wheat Waffles who is one of the prominent voices around the black pill (spoiler alert - the black pill is more aligned to what evolutionary psychologists are finding about human nature because mating and nature is brutal and doesn't care about your feelings) where he provides a paid service rating men's looks with university students.
One of his conclusions was that women will reject you for one fundamental flaw as opposed to doing a cost/benefit analysis to see if you would be a net positive or negative. Which makes sense as women (even older, unattractive women) have lots of options and the majority of men have little to none.
One of his other conclusion is that if you're average looking (not that ugly) or below, he may as well have rated them as zero. The women he asked wanted nothing to do with these men and subsequently that equates to zero, rather than the 1-9 scale he used.