Why do almost all 'incels' blame their situation on looks?

Post Reply New Topic

If incels' personalities are the problem, why do so many men with sh***y, misogynistic personalities get women lol?

Sorry, but if you think every guy who is successful with women respects them as people and doesn't ever have negative thoughts, you're delusional.

Interesting take on what constitutes an off-putting personality.

I think this is an issue that incels can't get their head round.

Attractive personality doesn't equal goody-two-shoes or wholesome and respectful.

Narcissists, for example, can be very charming and win people over, only to show their true colours once they've got someone trapped.

If someone is boring, can't communicate, doesn't look you in the eye, has awkward body language, talks AT you rather than to you, or who you have long uncomfortable silences with... You're not gonna go for him, you're gonna go for the one who you can have easy, enjoyable conversation with... so he listens to rap and he wears baggy jeans and drinks a lot, you can take that because when you get time together he makes you laugh and you have good banter. (Not my kinda guy, but if you grew up with friends like that you'll go for someone familiar).

Personality is more than a cluster of nefarious bad-boy traits.

A narcissist would never be an incel though.

That was my point. I meant you'll see that the horrible narcissist will get the girl, but she didn't see his horrible side; he charmed her in a way an awkward dude can't.

The narc will feel they are entitled, can't hide that, I agree with you.

We autistic dudes can be pretty damn charming though.

It's not just narcissistic men I've seen win women over, but also dumb guys who can barely string a sentence together. One thing I keep hearing is that incels have to learn more interests and have to be able to carry on a conversation, but I've known plenty who had interests and could carry on a conversation just fine.

Overall, I just don't like the narrative that suggests incels are full of character flaws, while more romantically successful men have none. Not being able to get a partner does not make you a bad person. Being able to get one does not make you a good person.

Who has suggested that people who are more successful than incels in this regard don't have any personality flaws? That sounds like a stretch. They just don't have the combination of flaws that incels seem to share, or they're better able to mask the ones they have, or they're able to be interesting and form connections in spite of those flaws.

Most incels are mundanely average looking, so insisting looks are the primary cause seems misguided at best.

The "dumb" inarticulate guys probably have the correct body language though.

I'm not into guys I can't understand who use slang, but their peers understand them and the women they're with grew up around other people who talk like that. They understand each other. I hear them on the bus and I haven't a clue what they're saying, but the main thing is that they understand each other.

You don't have to have a private school accent and scintillating conversation, you just have to be on the other person's wavelength and know how to talk about what they are interested in.

Most folks want someone familiar. Most of us here are oddballs and not familiar, therefore, not on their list of stable people.

Me, welk, everyday conversation bores me. Buy everyday guys find my conversation boring. We're just different. I'm not going around calling them dumb for liking every day girls. They just like what's familiar to them.

There's a lot of factors involved. Being interesting can help, but it may not. Depends what you're looking for, depends what they are looking for. Most of us here like discussing different topics, so we will list "interesting" as a priority. Most regular people have a different qualifier for "interesting".

It's complicated.

There's no magic one thing that can be fixed.

The things incel might be able to lay there problems at the feet of - pretty much any male whose different in any way, shape, or form or finds that society has figured that he's of lesser genetic worth for some exterior outward neurological trait - he count on being both a) deeply invisible, people won't know who is as a person or care, and b) he won't even be able to find peace there if he's well-adjusted because he'll discover that in addition to that society's pathological, has an extremely deep-seated desire (at an individual level) to essentially destroy people and take their stuff, so it won't be a place where they can go off and become Buddhist monks - rather it'll be a place where they're constantly alternating between treading water and drowning in other people's violence and machinations, and they'll be counted worthy targets because their differences or genetic failings are blood in the water.

It's not a good place to live and it's hard to imagine that sort of place turning out better people.

Communication skills are directly linked to intelligence and social status. The most intelligent people have a wider vocabulary, more articulate and re more intelligent than people of below average and average intelligence. It is the lack of intelligence, limited vocabulary and limited communication skills that holds guys back. Intelligence is not easy to improve or change, it is the way it is. Family upbringing and education background play a big role in determining intelligence.

A graduate from an Ivy College or University from Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford, etc with degree(s) in law, medicine, Business, Journalism, etc will posses higher social status, intelligence, communication skills and have a wider vocabulary than a low intelligent thug from the hood.

Social/communication skills don't always correlate with intelligence. There are plenty of intelligent autistics who don't do well socially. There are also plenty of nerdy types who are the same.

In terms of what determines intelligence, I've heard it's about 80% genetic, and it's at its most malleable during formative years.

There's actually a problem here on both ends.

Intelligence causes you to behave in ways that less intelligent people can't map and what they can't map generally gets taken as inferiority unless there's a preponderance of evidence that you're super-accomplished (which in such a socially-generated world that can be a catch-22). That actually counts as a hit to your social skills because what you're doing doesn't make sense and hence doesn't/can't catch. There are little things you can do to grind off the harsh edges of that but it still ends up in introversion, perceived 'lack of confidence', etc.

Plenty of thugs from the hood get women. In my experience, often more so than academics.
I think intelligence is one the most useless traits when it comes attracting the opposite sex. Which is why sapiosexual is one the most ridiculous terms in existence and does not actually exist. The only reason people think it does, is because they fail to isolate the variables.

it is, sapiosexuals claim that they would get horny just by listening to something smart, so when a sapiosexual woman wanna masturbate she should fantasize about some scientist guy in lab coat finding cure for cancer; which I highly doubt this is common.

Not even that, but fantasizing about an uemployed unattractive man with 200 IQ. lol
What sapiosexual means, is "I'm attracted to high status, high income jobs.

***Oohhh ahhhh....mister with 200 IQ....Ahhhh Ahhh yesss!** /squirts/