More Thought on Incels.

Post Reply New Topic

I just recently came across that word, simp. Googled but didn't get much clearer.

Is a simp simply a man perceived as submissive to a woman? Or does it take a special kind of woman (who is not interested in him, or who is not particularly attractive) to make one a simp?

If you give your partner lots of attention and put her first (in a relationship), and she reciprocates with plenty of affection, attention, and, yes, sex, does that still make you a simp? The "hoes before bros" definition seemed a bit bitter, like the other single men are angry for losing a drinking partner. But maybe I'm getting it wrong?

If they're still happily married, that would be great.

I am one who does not believe in "staying in one's league."

I once had a crush on a woman who was maybe 2 out of 10. She had ways of compensating for her "looks" which drove me wild. She was a subway conductress. I wanted to have her between the cars!

(Alas, nothing happened with her. She was married. She was tempted....but she loved her husband too much).

My point being-----all this crap about Alphas and Betas, and "10's" is all a bunch of hooey.

There are very few Incel women, if there are any....but there are certainly a good amount of incel women.

I've known a few.

Man o Man....I was a simp when I lived in Brooklyn.

I used to lie down next to a woman and talk to her. This was on a mattress on the floor. She was my immediate neighbor. She was secure enough in me to do this. I wanted to "try something"----but I was just too shy.

Yeah....she friendzoned me!

Some circular logic going on here. Only a physically attractive man can "get girls", so if a man can get girls, he must be physically attractive despite any evidence to the contrary. Only a physically unattractive man can't get girls, so if a man can't get girls, he must be physically unattractive, again despite any evidence to the contrary. This is a theory custom-made to be untestable against reality. If any evidence against it is advanced, you can just pick up the metaphorical goalposts and run like mad. Goes with the incel-culture theme of getting trapped in self-referential loops instead of looking at the real world.

It's "untestable" because of its subjective nature.

And because people are individuals. It's a hell of a lot more complex than "looks."

If I adhered, in living my life, to the research of social science studies, I'd be a 60-year-old virgin. I would have also signed up for governmental assistance at age 18, and continued on governmental assistance.

I am one of those who are not supposed to be able to find love by virtue of my "bad social skills," my short height, and my "average" looks. I am not in the "top 20 percent." I'm probably not even in the "top 50 percent."