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

Post Reply New Topic

I am not an incel; I am really more “love-shy” than anything else but sometimes I get unfairly tagged as an incel because of my struggles in finding love. I don’t go for the super model looking types since they generally already have a boyfriend or husband. I am much more attracted to women from alternative cultures but even they tend to already be taken and it’s discouraging. I tried to ask out a girl who was a hybrid between geeky and punk for coffee but she turned me down. I’ve struggled to establish a relationship since I was 17 and my “time” never comes, I am still lonely and locked out of the social world. I don’t think I should be “arrested”. I just wish things could change in my life because my mind keeps telling me I am doomed to be single until I finally exit.

That’s real harsh. Why do women dislike single men so much?

I don't believe most women really dislike single men-----there are many women who are also single, of course.

I do think the outlook that all single men are incel is damning and needs to be discarded. I don’t hate women and I don’t want a theocracy where women are essentially sex slaves which is what a lot of incels I have actually engaged with want. One is a Muslim though he doesn’t truly believe in the Abrahamic God so he’s truly a crypto atheist but uses Islam as a tool to get women in “non-Western cultures”. Another is Jewish but supports Islam because he thinks it will destroy both feminism and secularism in “the West”. There is also one who not only wants a Christian theocracy, he wants “atheists and apostates” to be caned but is upset that Islam is outpacing Christianity. Despite hating Western culture, he loves Trump. I don’t get that at all.

I get the impression that pretty much everyone with a particularly strong opinion one way or another wants to bend reality. Holes in the social fabric can open up and swallow people, sometimes a person was bullied in grade school and they should just 'know' that society's trying to mark your behaviors and habits for later reference - ie. that it's never supposed to change or improve, it even seems like real improvement in the merit department as a human being is seen as fraudulent because it's an adaptation to hide what people really care about - ie. genes.

We're a pretty demonic species when it comes down to it and we're at our 'best'/worst when we go the distance to hide or obscure that in all kinds of self-righteous double-talk.

This sort of assures me that most people don't want to improve and don't want a better world, on one hand our personalities are just press secretaries and apply backward-rationalization for our unconscious urges in most cases and on the other the whole point of how we get 'happy' is we grade all on a curve and there have to be losers for there to be winners - even if for example the average IQ went up to 400 people with 300 IQ's would be seen as flesh factory defects and screw ups. I don't know that there's a way to civilize this out of ourselves, on one level nature loves it exactly like it is and on the other level - as puppets of nature and as part of nature - we love it too exactly the way it is.

I would have to figure that the biggest issue with being Incel or FA wouldn't be not having sex, it would be the additional constant mistreatment or even outright hostility, workplace reputational attacks, people trying to slit your throat for just one mistake where other people can make dozens and be sort of okayish - all because your in a lower social strata or have fewer friends to defend you therefore all should be taken away from you and those born better than you or into a better social caste deserve the fruit of your work more than you do. I know those born better not only can't imagine that, they should maybe count it as a mark of their absolute superiority that they can't imagine that - and good on them, it's gotta be great.

It's bad enough to take away a guy's right to ever have a relationship or kids, if it were just that and other things could be made to go well he could survive and have a meaningful and even enjoyable life in other aspects. OTOH you're just about making a human bomb if in addition that guy can hardly find a moment of peace - even as an adult - away from constant zero-sum warfare and targeting to stay alive (almost like a workplace John Wick) not to get black-balled out of employment and live under a bridge, even if he did everything right, went to school, got the grades, does his job well, etc.. This is where I have to say, people who treat each other like this aren't human, they're vampiric monkeys that just about want to rape anything to death that's lower than them on the food chain.

For the longest time I was never a misanthrop, I gave people the benefit of the doubt, and I'm increasingly finding out that it wasn't good character on my part but some sort of willful naivety. It seems like a good 10-20% of people out there aren't just subconsciously predatory, they're willfully manipulative and do everything they can to bend reality into traps for other people to fall into. Unfortunately the math seems to work out that the people with the absolute worst and most aggressive traits set the tone for everyone else to either become more like them or have targets on their backs forever.

One way or another we should decide - are these problems that we want to get rid of because they destroy society and take us back to the jungle or is the later precisely what we want? Kind of imporant.

Those people sound nuts, Marknis.

I hope you don't believe most of the world is composed of these sorts of people.

A common message struggling guys receive here:

- Be yourself but don’t be yourself.

By and large they don't, and assuming they do is a self-defeating idea to adopt. It's easy to retreat inside of those sort of ideas to shift the burden of failure from one's self on to others, but it's neither honest nor constructive.

Indeed, they are.

I certainly don’t. However, I do see an increase in irrationality on a daily basis. For example, the local comic book store shares a parking lot with a casino and the owner put up signs telling people to not park on his side of the lot but the gamblers never follow the signs. They will actually illegally park in the handicap spaces or right in the middle of the lot which is both stupid and dangerous. It got really bad yesterday when someone accidentally bumped into a car that was parked stupidly close to the door of the business (A child was also in the car, by the way) and an angry bunch of gamblers surrounded the car to keep the driver from leaving. She tried to intimidate the crowd by driving into them but they refused to back down and even punched the car so she backed up so far she almost hit the door to the comic book store. She pulled into a handicap parking space and walked out to later return with who I assume was her boyfriend. The police came, the manager of the casino came into the store to apologize to my friend (The owner of the store), and the car driver got a ticket. That casino has been nothing but trouble and this incident only further proves that. The people who go to it don’t behave civilly (They even bring kids into the place!), they discourage customers from going into the comic book store, and they inconvenience everyone.

If you superposition then no accusation sticks unless it's from someone with more social power. It's brilliant stuff.

You clearly haven't met my former friend from college! He was very good-looking, and had 4 friends with benefit, plus countless one-time hookups. He once cold-messaged a classmate on Facebook, asking her if he could come over, so she could help him study. She said OK. He had sex with her that night!

To address your statement, there was no lag time. The interval between the first Facebook message and sexual intercourse was about 3 hours.

I had friends like that too, including a guy who was a bit like an Army Ranger version of Stifler from American Pie. He ended up walking up to be with tears in his eyes one night at a party because he whipped it out in front of a heavy-set girl at a party and asked 'Could I get money for it?' and she gave him her phone number (also - good luck trying to make sense of all that).

I really think the hierarchy is something like this:

1) social status
2) money
3) looks

If you have no social status you're invisible. If you have social status with no money the no money part might be temporary. No social status or no money means looks are largely irrelevant.

Seems like the question fundamentally of a guy's attractiveness is 'Is he socioeconomically hobbled or knee-capped by anything?' and if the question is yes then he doesn't/can't exist as much more than a tax payer. I'm sure there a lot of very good historical reasons for that, life or death reasons that make all kinds of sense in their context, but it conditions the current circumstances and I think it helps explain why there are all these 'average to good looking' incels - ie. they're guys without social status, money, and/or the social networks to get either of the former.

I thought we were discussing Incels and not PUAs. They're two completely different (and even opposite) types of people.

When I comes to a truly sexual, girlfriend-type attraction, as opposed to the mundane "looking for a good husband" attraction, the hierarchy goes more like this:

1. social status
2. looks
(gap)
3. money

Case in point. A few weeks ago, I took a cruise, and met a woman. She was traveling with two friends; I was solo. She took interest in me the first night, when I sang karaoke onstage. I did it in an entertaining, in-your-face manner, even though I don't have a singing voice, and probably didn't hit the notes too well. I improvised the lyrics a little, which made the whole audience laugh. I also did things like put my arms around people in pictures, and manspread while sitting. In other words, I acted high-status. Another point: looks. I aged into my looks at 27 or 28, after nearly 15 years of looking uglier than Quasimodo. Today at 36, I look pretty good. So, she found me attractive.

Now, money. I stayed in the cheapest windowless cabin I found find on the ship. She stayed in a middle-of-the-road cabin with a window. When me and her got drinks, she ordered cocktails; I ordered Bud Light and cheap vodka. In one port, she took a $109.99 parasailing ride; I took a $49.99 boat tour. She wore fairly nice clothes; I wore graphic T-shirts from Walmart, except to dinner, which had a "smart casual" dress code. Basically, I wasn't rich, and she knew. And yet, she found me attractive enough to kiss me on the dance floor one night. Never did she question my "poor" cruising style, except for briefly asking me how I wake up in the morning without a window in the cabin.

Whatever lets me fake attractiveness to women today, I wish I had that at age 21. Back then, not only was I creepy, I was also so ugly, I went to a plastic surgery consultation.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 03 Oct 2019, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, exactly! I was pointing out how "alpha" men have little to no "lag" between initial meeting and getting sex. It often happens in a matter of hours, like it with with my former friend. So, incels see that, and want the same thing for themselves, which is understandable. However, because "alpha" men are good-looking, and incels are ugly, such a thing will never be possible for incels. Women don't want sex with ugly men, plain and simple, which is understandable too. It doesn't make it fair and honest, but nature was never fair or honest.

In 2005 thru 2017, I got around my limitations (read: ugly face and poor social skills) by having sex with escorts, even after I aged into my looks. In 2017, my sex drive tanked, and went from low interest, to apathy, to outright disgust. I can't wrap my mind around why more incels aren't doing the same thing. I know that FOSTA/SESTA pretty much wiped out the industry, but I'm sure there are ways around it. I just don't know them, since I completely dropped the habit.