Serious Anybody else have an intellectual interest in the Incel Question aside from personal suffering?

[incel-american]

In 2007 I was reading a book by liberal journalist Robert Wright written in 1994 titled The Moral Animal. It was one of the first books to attempt to popularize the field of evolutionary psychology. I came across this passage which hit me like a bolt:

Fortunately, male violence can be dampened by circumstance. And one circumstance is a mate. We would expect womanless men to compete with special ferocity, and they do. An unmarried man between twenty-four and thirty-five years of age is about three times as likely to murder another male as is a married man the same age. Some of this difference no doubt reflects the kinds of men that do and don't get married to begin with, but Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have argued cogently that a good part of the difference may lie in "the pacifying effect of marriage."13 Murder isn't the only thing an "unpacified" man is more likely to do. He is also more likely to incur various risks — committing robbery, for example — to gain the resources that may attract women. He is more likely to rape. More diffusely, a high-risk, criminal life often entails the abuse of drugs and alcohol, which may then compound the problem by further diminishing his chances of ever earning enough money to attract women by legitimate means. This is perhaps the best argument for monogamous marriage, with its egalitarian effects on men: inequality among males is more {100} socially destructive — in ways that harm women and men — than inequality among women. A polygynous nation, in which large numbers of low-income men remain mateless, is not the kind of country many of us would want to live in. Unfortunately, this is the sort of country we already live in. The United States is no longer a nation of institutionalized monogamy. It is a nation of serial monogamy. And serial monogamy in some ways amounts to polygyny.

Johnny Carson, like many wealthy, high-status males, spent his career monopolizing long stretches of the reproductive years of a series of young women. Somewhere out there is a man who wanted a family and a beautiful wife and, if it hadn't been for Johnny Carson, would have married one of these women. And if this man has managed to find another woman, she was similarly snatched from the jaws of some other man. And so on — a domino effect: a scarcity of fertile females trickles down the social scale. As abstractly theoretical as this sounds, it really can't help but happen. There are only about twenty-five years of fertility per woman. When some men dominate more than twenty-five years' worth of fertility, some man, somewhere, must do with less. And when, on top of all the serial husbands, you add the young men who live with a woman for five years before deciding not to marry her, and then do it again (perhaps finally, at age thirty-five, marrying a twenty-eight-year-old), the net effect could be significant. Whereas in 1960 the fraction of the population age forty or older that had never married was about the same for men and women, by 1990 the fraction was markedly larger for men than for women.16 It is not crazy to think that there are homeless alcoholics and rapists who, had they come of age in a pre-1960s social climate, amid more equally distributed female resources, would have early on found a wife and adopted a lower-risk, less destructive lifestyle. Anyway, you don't have to buy this illustration to buy the point itself: if polygyny would indeed have pernicious effects on society's less fortunate men, and indirectly on the rest of us, then it isn't enough to just oppose legalized polygyny. (Legalized polygyny wasn't a looming political threat last time I checked, anyway.) We have to worry about the de facto polygyny that already exists. We have to ask not {101} whether monogamy can be saved, but whether it can be restored. And we might be enthusiastically joined in this inquiry not only by discontented wifeless men, but by a large number of discontented former wives — especially the ones who had the bad fortune to marry someone less wealthy than Johnny Carson.

A society that moved away from strongly enforced monogamous norms is a society which by necessity leads to incels. When we say we want female companionship we obviously all mean women in their 25 fear year fertility window. These women are being monopolized in today's sexual marketplace.

The fact that nobody cares about this aside from complaining incels (and aside from Jordan Peterson and GMU professor Robin Hanson who both made comments to the effect of favoring "enforced monogamy") no one else dare touch this issue. Two years after I read that book, George Sodini (who did the first clear cut incel related mass shooting) was found to have made similar arguments in his blog.

I mean, aside from your suffering, isn't all this kind of fascinating? What will be the ultimate outcome if society remains on this path away from monogamy? Will video-games and porn be enough for the male losers? Are we headed towards a second Sexual Revolution but this time in a conservative direction?

 

[ItsAllOverButTheCry]

I don't consider myself part of society so I could give a rats ass.

 

[Ellsworth]

If I was a normie sex haver I doubt I would have ever given a second thought to the whole incel thing.

 

[Schizoidcel]

Interesting.

I recommend this book if you haven't read it:

Whatever (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Houellebecq saw the inceldom problem coming, back in 1994.

Or the movie. I haven't seen it so I don't know if it's good apart from a few blackpilled scenes, this one is certainly a classic:

I heard it's not as brutal as the book tho.

 

[Numb]

The human brain is a brain of classification. Of patterns and organization. Incels always existed they will never disappear. They are a manifestation of hierarchy. How do we know what the top is if there is no bottom to base it off of? The human Brain naturally classifies everything it sees and organizes it into patterns. In societies where women aren't given rights we see less "incels" because you can "evolve" your way into buying a foid for some material items and she would have no say. But even then men with genetic faults that are so great that they cannot get these "materials" are the incels. Women are more valuable. So they will always mog the "value" of men. I don't have any equation to show how much more "valuable" the ugliest foid has on the ugliest man. But even in theoretical societies. Where people's genetics are influenced by science. Where all men are gigachads. Hierarchy will exist foids would just shift to selecting males over something else. "Oh this guy doesn't have enough hairs on his ass so i'll have to deny. In a position where you aren't "entitled" to a foid you will be chosen by a foid. No matter what improvement society has. As long as they have value they reign over who lives and dies. Even if they are enslaved. Their concept reeks over to the next thing we value and we trade it for them.
I'd like to add that the only way to "cure" incels is to either wipe away this "value" of pro-creation. Which is impossible unless we make some type of synthetic sperm and egg system where pro-creation isn't based on a "romantic conquest" of impressing a foid only then will "virginity" would not be a "failure" of existence. Or a society without hierarchy. Which is simply impossible. If we all looked the same and had the same exact genes to a tea. Then foids would simply base their "hierarchy classification system" on some other uncontrolled bullshit like "Oh you were born in x area but that area is worse than y area so ur "inferior". Thus is the incurable human brain, ever thinking about evolving.

 

[StaroRavager]

It’s certainly an interesting concept which one can spend years pondering and researching but I don’t really do that anymore. I’ve learned pretty much everything I need to know when it comes to matters of human behavior and sexual hierarchy

 

[NoCopeNoHope]

Excellent thread OP. Yes I believe that as more and more men become incel, we will begin to see society unravel. Currently, incels are probably 25% or so of the male population. They will no doubt grow in numbers until 50% or so of men are incel or have very small amounts of sex (once every 2 to 3 years). This going to lead to a revolution in terms of how human sexuality is perceived. There are three scenarios I see playing out:

1) Male violence and competition escalates to the point to where basic public services like utilities, security (police and military), and education are severely degraded due to a combination of ongoing widespread criminality and corruption and a decrease in tax revenue, largely caused by work slowdown (no need to wage slave endlessly if you don't have a wife and kids at home) and the aforementioned security risk. This eventually leads to the establishment of new states or social orders over a long period of time. This is what has happened in the past, so it is likely what will happen again.

2) As alluded to in your post, technology is able to pacify and subdue the natural male risk taking mechanism. I don't see porn, vidya, or other present copes being up to the task of doing this. I think realistic sexbots with complex AI are going to be fast tracked for development due to massive demand. Artificial wombs will likely come next, although whether they are viable in our lifetimes or not is debatable. Essentially, the natural male/female value imbalance will be fixed via sexbots and artificial wombs. Advances in materials science, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience/psychology will combine to form a decent enough approximation of a woman.

3) Some other culture or society completely absorbs and replaces western style feminism and fixes the social problems without much violence. This is very unlikely, considering that feminism is destroying every culture and nation it touches.


Now the complicating factors that make this go around in out of control female hypergamy different from that of other past societies is the speed at which we can communicate. We can talk across the world instantly, which allows us to share ideas instantly. Scenario 2 has a somewhat decent chance at playing out if sex technology development is left alone. Thanks to communications, the blackpill and its truths are being spread faster and faster. Its becoming apparent that women are holding the potential of humanity back with their archaic and deduct reproductive criteria. The flipside, however is also true. As even isolated african tribespeople receive internet capable smartphones, feminism will spread rapidly amongst women unless it is kept in check by any means necessary. The spread of information will no doubt play a major role in male/female relationships throughout humanity in the 21st century. It might not be in our lifetimes when the line is crossed, but it will happen.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Bookmarking this post, the first paragraph from the excerpt to posted is one of the most rational easily laid out arguments for enforced monogamy and paints an understanding as to why incel mass shooters exist

 

[Of Manlets and Men]

I probably would have an interest even if I wasn't incel, although of course it wouldn't be nearly as hardcore as it is now.

 

[seija]

I don't consider myself part of society so I could give a rats ass.

 

[sub8male]

I probably would have an interest even if I wasn't incel, although of course it wouldn't be nearly as hardcore as it is now.

 

[Evildоer]

I mean, aside from your suffering, isn't all this kind of fascinating? What will be the ultimate outcome if society remains on this path away from monogamy? Will video-games and porn be enough for the male losers? Are we headed towards a second Sexual Revolution but this time in a conservative direction?

Society wouldn't work properly if female hypergamy will be fully unleashed, all sexless men will rebel sooner or later, we either start a massive war to make gender ratios like 1 male for 10 females or face the inevitable overthrow of gynocentrist government in the future