Do you have sympathy for male 'incels (involuntary celibates)?

Colser

Shenshen wrote: »

And we all fancy the same 20%? Why has nobody ever told me? Do I need to ditch my husband now? Who should I fancy instead?

No you have to lock him up...he's obviously one of the 20% ..ðŸ˜

Chips Lovell

Shenshen wrote: »

Wow - how many women a day do they go through, in average?

About seven usually, I'm told.

GLaDOS

A quick look at the associated reddit makes for pretty sad reading

Shenshen

pickarooney wrote: »

Surely that's proof of the exact opposite? Female prostitutes exist everywhere because it's a viable business and has been since the dawn of time. Male prostitutes who only have female clients are exceptionally rare. That there's no demand for them strongly suggests that either women don't need to pay for sex or are not all that bothered if they have to go without.

From personal experience, the latter. I prefer quality over quantity, and I understand I'm not the only one.

Plopsu

Shenshen wrote: »

"
There is a massive difference for a woman between having satisfactory sex, and simply being used as a sperm receptacle.

There is! For men too. However, unless all the women claiming they can't go outside their door without men approaching them are lying, there's still a lot sex available to women. A man will be very unlikely to simply have sex offered to him satisfactory or not.

PucaMama

silverharp wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

What do you need a citation for? If you want to know about MGTOW got to the men's forum on here. Or reddit. Or their own websites.

I wouldn't have the time nor interest. I have listened to some mgtow youtubers and they don't come across as lacking confidence . Im sure like any group there is a bell curve of types but pinning them all as lacking confidence seems to just a way of dismissing them.

Which is why I said they are KINDA LIKE MGTOW without self confidence

Shenshen

Plopsu wrote: »

There is! For men too. However, unless all the women claiming they can't go outside their door without men approaching them are lying, there's still a lot sex available to women. A man will be very unlikely to simply have sex offered to him satisfactory or not.

Whereas to a woman, bad sex is worse than no sex. So yes, there is loads of very bad sex out there. But why should a woman go for that? There's no joy or satisfaction in it for her, after all.

Chips Lovell

Generally once people find a label like this to apply to themselves they make themselves very hard to feel sorry for. :pac:

Plopsu

Shenshen wrote: »

Whereas to a woman, bad sex is worse than no sex. So yes, there is loads of very bad sex out there. But why should a woman go for that? There's no joy or satisfaction in it for her, after all.

I didn't say she should but the sex is available. There's less on offer for men and most of what is will also be very bad. Hint: squirting some semen does not equal satisfied.
All most women have to do is say yes and they will have sex. There is a chance that it will be bad. A man will have to work a great deal to have even a chance of having that chance of bad sex.

jamesbere

Shenshen wrote: »

And we all fancy the same 20%? Why has nobody ever told me? Do I need to ditch my husband now? Who should I fancy instead?

Me, I'm quite the catch you know

Shenshen

Plopsu wrote: »

I didn't say she should but the sex is available. There's less on offer for men and most of what is will also be very bad. Hint: squirting some semen does not equal satisfied.
All most women have to do is say yes and they will have sex. There is a chance that it will be bad. A man will have to work a great deal to have even a chance of having that chance of bad sex.

There's more than just "a chance". There's a high probability.
I think the major disconnect is that you seem to think "stick male part into female part" = sex. It may be for men, but it isn't for women.
To claim that women can have sex easily simply because there's plenty of male parts wanting to get stuck into something is a bit like claiming that everybody on the planet has enough to eat because there are plenty of insects everywhere.

PucaMama

Plopsu wrote: »

Shenshen wrote: »

Whereas to a woman, bad sex is worse than no sex. So yes, there is loads of very bad sex out there. But why should a woman go for that? There's no joy or satisfaction in it for her, after all.

I didn't say she should but the sex is available. There's less on offer for men and most of what is will also be very bad. Hint: squirting some semen does not equal satisfied.
All most women have to do is say yes and they will have sex. There is a chance that it will be bad. A man will have to work a great deal to have even a chance of having that chance of bad sex.

So if bad sex being available for women means they don't struggle to get it, then women men don't find attractive being available for sex should cancel out men's lack of it because it's available right?

Plopsu

Shenshen wrote: »

There's more than just "a chance". There's a high probability.
I think the major disconnect is that you seem to think "stick male part into female part" = sex. It may be for men, but it isn't for women.
To claim that women can have sex easily simply because there's plenty of male parts wanting to get stuck into something is a bit like claiming that everybody on the planet has enough to eat because there are plenty of insects everywhere.

Eh, perhaps you should read what I wrote because it's pretty much the opposite of what you just said.

ohnonotgmail

Plopsu wrote: »

I didn't say she should but the sex is available. There's less on offer for men and most of what is will also be very bad. Hint: squirting some semen does not equal satisfied.
All most women have to do is say yes and they will have sex. There is a chance that it will be bad. A man will have to work a great deal to have even a chance of having that chance of bad sex.

even if there is more sex available to them that doesnt mean there is sex available that they would like to avail of.

bellylint

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No, because as often seems to be the case, they take out their bitterness and frustration on women who have nothing to do with their situation i.e. All of them

ceadaoin. wrote: »

When you have a look at their subreddit and see discussions advocating raping women, transitioning to a woman just to get sex or whether they should have sex with their own sister should the opportunity arise, it's hard to have sympathy for them. I think the fact that they are a bunch of weirdos explains why they are celibate, yet they choose to blame anyone but themselves

Way to go you on judging all people from a group on small a small sample size, or the small group that choose to comment on subreddit. My own experiences match nothing to yours.

Atoms for Peace

jeanjolie wrote: »

What do you mean?

People claim sex is a human need but that mentality is thrown out the window when they complain that they can't get sex from women and are deemed as 'entitled spoiled misogynists'.

Do you believe that a man should be able to pay a woman for sex?

Like I said a lack of empathy, a need or want doesn't give anyone free reign to disregard others feelings and the issue of prostitution is a whole different issue.

Colser

Shenshen wrote: »

There's more than just "a chance". There's a high probability.
I think the major disconnect is that you seem to think "stick male part into female part" = sex. It may be for men, but it isn't for women.
To claim that women can have sex easily simply because there's plenty of male parts wanting to get stuck into something is a bit like claiming that everybody on the planet has enough to eat because there are plenty of insects everywhere.

I think it all boils down to the fact that we're "wired" completely differently.For men it's more like scratching an itch and it doesn't matter much who scratches it ( just my personal opinion).. for women that just doesn't work and there needs to be an attraction/ connection..it's difficult to explain but there's a subtle difference that can lead to both sides getting none but for different reasons.

Plopsu

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

even if there is more sex available to them that doesnt mean there is sex available that they would like to avail of.

Which is a very different statement, especially since there have been a few posts on here suggesting that these guys problems is that they're not availing of what's available.

Pat Mustard

There are a whole range of reasons why bachelor farmers end up alone, to include migration of young women to urban areas and rural isolation.

Supply and demand is as responsible as anything else.

ArchXStanton

These fellas need to book a good trip to Thailand..

Plopsu

PucaMama wrote: »

So if bad sex being available for women means they don't struggle to get it, then women men don't find attractive being available for sex should cancel out men's lack of it because it's available right?

No because even those women will require a great deal of work (as I basically said in the post you quoted).

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

There's more than just "a chance". There's a high probability.
I think the major disconnect is that you seem to think "stick male part into female part" = sex. It may be for men, but it isn't for women.
To claim that women can have sex easily simply because there's plenty of male parts wanting to get stuck into something is a bit like claiming that everybody on the planet has enough to eat because there are plenty of insects everywhere.

I would agree 100% SS, but there's no denying that it's more of a "seller's market" and the average woman in general has more options as far as dating and mating than the average man.

Take one aspect; shyness. That is seen much less a disadvantage for women, with some men they'd even see it as a plus. Shyness in men makes it much harder to get into dating/relationships. It's seen much more as a negative. Plus on very practical terms it's a negative. In most man/woman asking out encounters it's the man doing the "active" part. In most cases it is he who has to do the approaching. Few enough women will, they usually assume the "passive". Overtly at least, as it's more complex than that.

There are more male virgins at say thirty than there are female virgins at that age. Granted as you say it could be sh1te sex, but it was had so to speak.

It can be very age dependent too. The shy retiring guy at 20 is not as much in the game as the same shy retiring guy might be at 35. Though I've known a few lads like that, where because of near zero experience ended up with right loopers and thought this normal.

These "incels" and MGTOW and all that is also very culturally based and biased too. That is American. And American on the interwebs. It's a different dating culture(though sadly we're importing that guff here more and more).

The "voluntary" part is important. If someone is voluntarily "incel" or "going their own way" because they actually have the choice to do so or not, I'd say fair enough, whatever floats your boat. However if you're attaching these daft titles to yourself because (you think) you've no choice in the matter that's a very different thing. It's a copout and one where you can find other copouts to fuel your echo chamber worldview and feel a sense of community reinforcing your copout.

This does not include men who have a genuine mental pathology or disadvantage of course.

ohnonotgmail

Plopsu wrote: »

Which is a very different statement, especially since there have been a few posts on here suggesting that these guys problems is that they're not availing of what's available.

that seems to be the OPs position. middle class "men" refusing to go out with women beneath their station. I'm not sure how that ends up as involuntary celibacy though.

pwurple

C'mere, there's nothing wrong with celibacy. In every part of history there are some group of celibate men & women who form groups and are functional parts of society. Monks for example. Plenty of them have given humanity invaluable service, protecting libraries of human knowledge through wars, protecting their communities etc.

I have female friends who just have no interest in sex at all. Never had, never bothered them, don't feel they are missing out. I also know people who would have dearly love a mate and children, but just never met someone they gelled with.

This happens in life, we don't get everything we want, from the meaningful to the mundane. I'd dearly love several members of my family to still be alive. I wish I had more holidays. I'd kinda like the bottle of milk in my fridge to be a bottle of wine. I want, but due to either choice or accident I don't get. Suck it up and just get on with it the best you can.

Wibbs

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There are a whole range of reasons why bachelor farmers end up alone, to include migration of young women to urban areas and rural isolation.

Supply and demand is as responsible as anything else.

+1. I remember reading some studies into genetics and geography and it showed that women and their genes travel further than men and this has been the case throughout our history. Like you say you can see this in small towns around Ireland. The ratio of teenage men and women in a local nightclub are about equal, but that gets more skewed as the ages go up. Even in tribal societies it's nearly always the women that marry out into other groups. It's one theory why women are generally better on average at acquiring languages. It was positively selected for because of these movements.

PucaMama

Plopsu wrote: »

PucaMama wrote: »

So if bad sex being available for women means they don't struggle to get it, then women men don't find attractive being available for sex should cancel out men's lack of it because it's available right?

No because even those women will require a great deal of work (as I basically said in the post you quoted).

So men want sex with attractive women without any work. Completely unfair to women because if they do act like that they are judged as easy.

Wibbs

pwurple wrote: »

Suck it up and just get on with it the best you can.

Ah jaysus you can't be saying that PW. God forbid some people would drop a sense of me me me entitlement...

Plopsu

PucaMama wrote: »

So men want sex with attractive women without any work. Completely unfair to women because if they do act like that they are judged as easy.

Not what I said. Not sure if you strawmanning or I'm not explaining properly.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

It can be very age dependent too. The shy retiring guy at 20 is not as much in the game as the same shy retiring guy might be at 35. Though I've known a few lads like that, where because of near zero experience ended up with right loopers and thought this normal.

These "incels" and MGTOW and all that is also very culturally based and biased too. That is American. And American on the interwebs. It's a different dating culture(though sadly we're importing that guff here more and more).

Even before that age tbh. I can think of one mate who took a good while to get into the game and on one level I tell him he just loves misery. :pac: There's a few more things at play (looks being the most important thing to him for example) that mean he "falls" for a particular type and can't spot signs in advance. But hey, he's happy being pissed off. :pac:
Personally I'm terrible when it comes to women, but at the same time it's not like I have a lot of options. Twice I've swiped through everyone in Ireland on Tinder and have exchanged messages with less than 20 people. So yeah, the "voluntary" bit is important. :pac: Obviously I need to try harder "in real life" but it's not like I fancy my chances. :pac:

The "voluntary" part is important. If someone is voluntarily "incel" or "going their own way" because they actually have the choice to do so or not, I'd say fair enough, whatever floats your boat. However if you're attaching these daft titles to yourself because (you think) you've no choice in the matter that's a very different thing. It's a copout and one where you can find other copouts to fuel your echo chamber worldview and feel a sense of community reinforcing your copout.

It's basically lads who couldn't get any and gave up. That's fine with me, but these lads then get sucked into the echo-chamber. I do have some sympathy for them, because when you hit a certain age and still can't get any female attention it's tough going. It's easy to dismiss their experience whether it's "Oh sure it's as tough for women" (bull****) or "I could get some why can't they?" (apply that to every situation? Nah thought not) and really it's just an extension of the school-age bull****.