More Thought on Incels.

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. Women will try to "date up." This leads to the most beautiful men sleeping with the most beautiful women as well as sleeping with lesser-attractive women. In turn, average men may get some average women, or settle for uglier omega women. Ugly men, the omega males, are left out in the dust.

Also, as a female posted not too long ago in this thread, she won't "lower her standards." This means there's a certain point where women of any appearance would rather be alone than be with a man they find unattractive. So, yes, even ugly women are selective, they want men more attractive than they are, and would rather be alone than stoop to being with an ugly guy.

One woman I know is able to get laid and is not goodlooking. However because she is not goodlooking, the only guys that go for her are ones who are selfish in bed and make it all about them.

Would she count as involuntarily celibate in the sense that she can not get reciprocal sex? Is this common among unnatractive women?

No, she wouldn't count. She's sexually active by choice. Not celibate at all. Even if she's too ugly to get men she finds more attractive, she's still able and willing to have sex with other men who'll have her. But even she has a threshold she won't go below. Maybe she wants an athlete but can't get him, so she'll settle for an average man who may even be a bit abusive; she won't touch an ugly man.

This is quite common.

Oh ok I wasn't sure if it counts at getting sex if she can't get guys who will pleasure her back sexually.

I'm not sure if the guys are ugly though. They could be.

that makes me angry that the guys are just pumping without pleasuring the pumpee. it is just basic fairness to care.

Those men feel they can do better, but have to settle for her. She herself refuses to settle with an uglier man...the whole female standards thing. It takes two to tango, and she's still willing to tango even if it isn't her prince charming. Be more more upset with her because she'd probably never want to tango with a man in your shoes.



They're acceptable for her. Maybe not her top choice, but passable, in HER eyes. There are indeed guys she finds ugly, below the threshold, that she wouldn't touch. She'd rather settle with these dudes than go with uglier guys.

And if she's having sex, or can get sex, she's not involuntarily celibate.

This hits the nail right on the head. My wife inadvertently filled me in on this a couple of years ago when discussing the plot of a movie she had seen. I think it might have been "He's just not that into you." I don't think she realized exactly what she was saying, and she didn't say it in exactly those words, but that was the gist of it. My marriage isn't sexless, but it isn't quite what I had dreamed it would be either.

Is it possible for an Aspie to be an Alpha Male? Or does our lack of reading non-verbal behavior and social awkwardness make that more or less impossible. Most beta-males do seem to get married, you just have to rely on things like income and occupational status instead and realize that your spouse will never have the real Gina Tingles for you.

It's possible for an aspie man to emulate an alpha male in the short term. I did just that on a 4-day cruise in September 2019, which resulted in me French-kissing a woman, and her friend thought I was cool too, although the most her friend did was hug me. But it's almost impossible for an aspie man to truly be an alpha male, unfortunately. Social skills are a critical prerequisite for an alpha/dominant status. And without them, a woman will never feel the wild, animalistic lust for a beta male that she feels for an alpha male. Especially considering that most beta males are by no means physically attractive.

I feel like men who have only had relations with professionals aren't exactly well equipped to dole out advice on how sex or healthy romantic relationships work.

For starters, whenever people start trotting out alpha/beta/sigma/omega clichés you know whatever else they say is going to be rooted in these misguided oversimplifications.

How do women know which men are in the top 20% or not? and what exactly puts a man in the top 20%?

Good genes and good looks put him there. Women know in the first 5 seconds of meeting a man if he's alpha or beta; it's subconscious.

But of the 80% unattractive men, are you saying they're all equally unattractive and all have an equal chance of succeeding with effort?

It seems like even the 80% can be subdivided into 2 groups in the eyes of women: passable with the right actions/situations OR too ugly to even qualify.

Just as there is a top tier of the 20% most attractive, there's a bottom tier of utterly hopeless. The average man isn't in either extreme category. But advice for the average man won't work for the ugly man.

Hmm interesting, can't say I have experienced that.

It's hard to say. According to the theory I learned, it's a strict, unforgiving divide: there are men who women lust after (alphas), and there are men who women are disgusted by (betas), plain and simple.

However, like everything else in the NT world, some nuances do exist. Some beta males have an easier time emulating alpha males. But even they will be found out eventually. Heck, if that woman from the cruise weren't a stranger on a ship, I'm sure she'd eventually find out I'm really a beta male, and she'd hate me for it. Especially after she snuggled with me in a hot tub and French kissed me on the dance floor in a nightclub. But instead, she praised me for being "independent" and "decisive" enough to go on a cruise by myself. She even backed me up when someone said it was odd to cruise by yourself. If she had known from the get-go that I'm a beta male, I'm sure she'd say I'm a friendless loser for doing the exact same thing. C'est la vie!

This isn't meant to boast. I'm pointing out how I narrowly escaped being found out.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 30 Aug 2021, 8:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The study that found that women rated only the top 20% of men on dating sites as attractive also found that that women were more likely than than men to message men that they found unattractive as opposed to men who would only persue women in the top 10%.

So, stupid incel bulls_t.

Even if only 20% of males are ideally attractive, more than 20% of males are having relations. By definition, most men are NOT attractive, but most grown men have had relationships. They're in that average camp...not seductive, but passable. I think the flaw of the average or "passable" man is that he realizes he's not in the attractive category, but fails to realize there's a sub-basement below him of men who are deemed irreconcilably ugly.

With some effort and luck, most average men can indeed be successful. Not to the extent of the TOP 20. But it's inaccurate to say the 80% are equally hideous. Unattractive and ugly aren't necessarily the same thing. It's one thing not to entice a woman with your looks the way the TOP 20 does. It's another to completely and utterly disgust her and turn her off with your looks, the way the BOTTOM tier does. I think this is what average men fail to see...most average men, who are neither attractive nor hideous, have indeed had relationships, they can't all be in the TOP 20. And a lot of ugly men in that bottom tier who have never had relationships no matter how hard they try are in denial about their ugliness.

Yes, if a "passable man" comes with baggage, it's certainly a turn-off for women, as you demonstrated. If you're not in the TOP 20, each negative trait can count against you. But you still have a foot-in-the-door if you're passable. But the woman has to find you passable in the first place before even considering giving you a chance. The least attractive of men aren't even given the chance in the first place...before even getting to the baggage stage.

So it's more like an elite instantly-attractive top, an average bland middle who has to work harder for it, and completely outcast ugly bottom tier.