Venting If you think there is no relation between economic precariousness and inceldom you´re wrong

[IncelCatechumen]

Only ricecels and currycels in the US (usually STEM majors, ivy-league goers, and 6-figures gainers) propagate this myth due to their own incapacity to achieve sex. The issue here is that they eventually are going to achieve it: of course, to still justify their inceldom they´re going to use the best resource available in blackpill lingo to make shity arguments: betabuxx.

Lookism is simply not sufficient to explain the rise of inceldom: only a minority of w*men use dating apps (tinder and bumble are highly male-dominates artificial spaces, which is the sole explanation behind the 80/20 disparity) and studies have shown that w*men interests in looks are less prevalent for long-term partners as opposed to guys. W*men that use tinder regularly are highly psychopathic and they enable insane dark-triad behaviours in guys like extreme openness to sex, nevertheless, they're still in the minority. Also, most individuals do not meet their partners on dating apps (the 26% statistic also includes the internet as a whole and is not exclusive to dating apps)

Also, being a cutecel is pure cope: you can always find a k-pop fan, since they have a strong preference towards effeminate faces: also, before ovulation, most w*men are not necessarily attracted towards chad-like hypermasculine features.

The fact is that economic anxiety is correlated with inceldom, and ideas like beetabuxxing are just a resource to justify that you´re not a fakecel even if you make a lot of money and have a stable job (two factors that makes you a candidate to find your looksmatch). Pathetic

We need a more nuanced take on inceldom rather than this corporeist reductionist view on the sexual market: muscularity actually predicts sexual success, so gymcels are also suspicious.

 

[Deleted member 36576]

Lookism is simply not sufficient to explain the rise of inceldom: only a minority of w*men use dating apps (tinder and bumble are highly male-dominates artificial spaces, which is the sole explanation behind the 80/20 disparity) and studies have shown that w*men interests in looks are less prevalent for long-term partners as opposed to guys.

it's already known that evolutionarily women prefer feminine looking providers for long-term relationships while they cuck him with chad on the side, although those guys still get sex. good post tho contrariancel.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

it's already known that evolutionarily women prefer feminine looking providers for long-term relationships while they cuck him with chad on the side, although those guys still get sex. good post tho contrariancel.

I don´t believe that most w*men are committing adultery, in fact, guys cheat (20%) more than w*men (13%)

it's already known that evolutionarily women prefer feminine looking providers for long-term relationships while they cuck him with chad on the side, although those guys still get sex. good post tho contrariancel.

And generalized female promiscuity is also a myth: promiscuous w*men are in the minority, and are also highly psychopathic

 

[Deleted member 36576]

I don´t believe that most w*men are committing adultery, in fact, guys cheat (20%) more than w*men (13%)


And generalized female promiscuity is also a myth: promiscuous w*men are in the minority, and are also highly psychopathic

self-reported data, you know women are pathological liars right? if they weren't good at lying about it they'd get their shit beat by their husbands

 

[IncelCatechumen]

I don´t believe that most w*men are committing adultery, in fact, guys cheat (20%) more than w*men (13%)


And generalized female promiscuity is also a myth: promiscuous w*men are in the minority, and are also highly psychopathic

In fact, the rise of inceldom might be correlated to the sexual coldness of w*men: they simply do not value sex as much as we do. It might be bc of three reasons: 1) biology: w*men are simply not as sexually driven as guys are 2) sexual expectations. about w*men in society perceive female promiscuity as a bad thing 3) a mix between the two

self-reported data, you know women are pathological liars right? if they weren't good at lying about it they'd get their shit beat by their husbands

Well, the studies are often anonymous, so i don´t see your point even if is true that w*men are liars.

 

[Deleted member 36576]

Well, the studies are often anonymous, so i don´t see your point even if is true that w*men are liars.

i'm not saying they were lying cause they were afraid of repercussions, i was saying they evolved to lie and do so whenever it is beneficial.

And generalized female promiscuity is also a myth: promiscuous w*men are in the minority, and are also highly psychopathic

how can you say that? this is completely antithetical to everything you see everyday with onlyfans, tinder etc... women that can access chad will always be "promiscuous". only gigasluts that fuck everyone and everything are actually abnormally promiscuous women.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

how can you say that? this is completely antithetical to everything you see everyday with onlyfans, tinder etc... women that can access chad will always be "promiscuous". only gigasluts that fuck everyone and everything are actually abnormally promiscuous women.

Onlyfans do not presupposes promiscuity (if we understand it as having multiple sex partners). In regard to tinder, most users on tinder are guys, and the difference is a HUGE one (sometimes it's even 70% of guys). Also, only a minority of w*men who use dating apps are promiscuous, the majority of them use tinder as form of validation. This is just statiscally false.

 

[thevenon]

Lookism is simply not sufficient to explain the rise of inceldom: only a minority of w*men use dating apps (tinder and bumble are highly male-dominates artificial spaces, which is the sole explanation behind the 80/20 disparity) and studies have shown that w*men interests in looks are less prevalent for long-term partners as opposed to guys.

This is probably what foids say and even think but it is not the truth. The behavior of foids has changed recently a lot. Everything what is written was true 40 years ago, it is not true any more. The foid rejects the man almost exclusively because of his look now. She rejects him because she has not any economic or other reasons to date him now, the look becomes the only reason. It was not the case in the past.

So if you want to stop this foids' rejection you must not give an education and economic resources to foids.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

Onlyfans do not presupposes promiscuity (if we understand it as having multiple sex partners). In regard to tinder, most users on tinder are guys, and the difference is a HUGE one (sometimes it's even 70% of guys). Also, only a minority of w*men who use dating apps are promiscuous, the majority of them use tinder as form of validation. This is just statiscally false.

As I said, the issue is that w*men are simply not having enough sex, they´re "going their own way" most of the times, and engage in volceldom.

This is probably what foids say and even think but it is not the truth. The behavior of foids has changed recently a lot. Everything what is written was true 40 years ago, it is not true any more. The foid rejects the man almost exclusively because of his look now. She rejects him because she has not any economic or other reasons to date him now, the look becomes the only reason. It was not the case in the past.

So if you want to stop this foids' rejection you must not give an education and economic resources to foids.

Simply not true, and there are no statistical backings for such claims. The only space in which ugly w*men have the tupé of rejecting superior looking guys are on dating apps, which are highly artificial places that foids use to gain validations (and not necessarily sex)

 

[Deleted member 36576]

As I said, the issue is that w*men are simply not having enough sex, they´re "going their own way" most of the times, and engage in volceldom.

why do you think that is the case

 

[IncelCatechumen]

This is probably what foids say and even think but it is not the truth. The behavior of foids has changed recently a lot. Everything what is written was true 40 years ago, it is not true any more. The foid rejects the man almost exclusively because of his look now. She rejects him because she has not any economic or other reasons to date him now, the look becomes the only reason. It was not the case in the past.

So if you want to stop this foids' rejection you must not give an education and economic resources to foids.

Also economical hypergamy is simply not a statistical reality: most marriages are within the same social class. The main difference, of course, is that guys are more open to marry down as opposed to w*men. In fact, one factor that might explain inceldom is the academic success of w*men over guys, there are not enough guys who satisfy the academical requirements to marry them.

why do you think that is the case

Because dating app are artificial male-dominates spaces, of course there is going to be a Pareto distribution in them

 

[Deleted member 36576]

Because dating app are artificial male-dominates spaces, of course there is going to be a Pareto distribution in them

i meant why do you think women are becoming volcels? it clearly is happening at least in a small scale (since female sexlessness is rising and they clearly aren't getting rejected by anyone ).

 

[thevenon]

In fact, one factor that might explain inceldom is the academic success of w*men over guys, there are not enough guys who satisfy the academical requirements to marry them.

No, it is not the case. Educated foids do not require high academical requirements from men but a very good look. Otherwise I would never be an incel.

 

[Michinomiya Hirohit]

it's already known that evolutionarily women prefer feminine looking providers for long-term relationships while they cuck him with chad on the side, although those guys still get sex. good post tho contrariancel.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

i meant why do you think women are becoming volcels? it clearly is happening at least in a small scale (since female sexlessness is rising and they clearly aren't getting rejected by anyone ).

Ah I see. This is an issue that have yet no definitive answer. I feel it´s mainly bc w*men are not that sexual as guys are, and the promises of being a girlboss are supportive of atomized social structures. Also it´s possible to say that w*men academical achievements over guys serves as an important factor to explain the rise of sexelesness in both genders.

No, it is not the case. Educated foids do not require high academical requirements from men but a very good look. Otherwise I would never be an incel.

Anecdotes.

 

[Kaptain Kirk]

Based. I love controversial threads. Get 'em, OP.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

Based. I love controversial threads. Get 'em, OP.

Thank you, brrocel

 

[Remaincel]

yeah, it's called betabuxx

 

[Deleted member 36576]

Based. I love controversial threads. Get 'em, OP.

Thank you, brrocel

based promoters of scientific discussion

 

[IncelCatechumen]

yeah, it's called betabuxx

This is so stupid. Chad and non-chads are obviously not going to have the same sex life. The whole idea of betabuxx is stupid

 

[curryboy420]

I dont know but when I see guys here with lots of money, muscles, or educations it definitely makes me feel more of an incel because I dont have any of those things. I failed through high school and survive off universal credit (£250 month) lol. How the fuck am I ever gonna fix this if people who actually succeed in things still fail at life

 

[Inkblot]

it's already known that evolutionarily women prefer feminine looking providers for long-term relationships while they cuck him with chad on the side, although those guys still get sex. good post tho contrariancel.

This would explain why one in 25 to one in 10 fathers aren't the presumed biological parent everyone (except the degenerate mother) thought they were.

 

[I want to believe]

Yeah, I think there's no relation.

 

[IncelCatechumen]

Yeah, I think there's no relation.

You are statistically wrong.

I dont know but when I see guys here with lots of money, muscles, or educations it definitely makes me feel more of an incel because I dont have any of those things. I failed through high school and survive off universal credit (£250 month) lol. How the fuck am I ever gonna fix this if people who actually succeed in things still fail at life

They´re simply standarcels. Do not listen to them: remember that the whole idea of betabuxxing is a fallacy in order to justify that they´re still incels.

 

[I want to believe]

Like, almost everyone here can afford a prostitute. So what?

 

[IncelCatechumen]

Like, almost everyone here can afford a prostitute. So what?

Not true, I´m a NEET.

 

[based_meme]

Only ricecels and currycels in the US (usually STEM majors, ivy-league goers, and 6-figures gainers) propagate this myth due to their own incapacity to achieve sex. The issue here is that they eventually are going to achieve it: of course, to still justify their inceldom they´re going to use the best resource available in blackpill lingo to make shity arguments: betabuxx.

OK, but...

Lookism is simply not sufficient to explain the rise of inceldom: only a minority of w*men use dating apps (tinder and bumble are highly male-dominates artificial spaces, which is the sole explanation behind the 80/20 disparity) and studies have shown that w*men interests in looks are less prevalent for long-term partners as opposed to guys.

...this is literally betabuxx. Women seek resource security for the long-term and genetic fitness for the short-term. This is the dual mating strategy and is part of the literature everywhere from evolutionary psychology to red pill and PUA theorists (who derive it from the academic literature).

W*men that use tinder regularly are highly psychopathic and they enable insane dark-triad behaviours in guys like extreme openness to sex, nevertheless, they're still in the minority.

Dubious claim, since you also claim that the majority use it for validation. That isn't psychopathy, that's narcissism.

Also, most individuals do not meet their partners on dating apps (the 26% statistic also includes the internet as a whole and is not exclusive to dating apps)

What are you even trying to argue anymore? What does this fact (74% meet their partners outside of the internet) have to do with your main argument that betabuxx is an excuse for fakecels?

Also, being a cutecel is pure cope: you can always find a k-pop fan, since they have a strong preference towards effeminate faces: also, before ovulation, most w*men are not necessarily attracted towards chad-like hypermasculine features.

This is an irrelevant point and I don't know why you're even bringing it up.

The fact is that economic anxiety is correlated with inceldom, and ideas like beetabuxxing are just a resource to justify that you´re not a fakecel even if you make a lot of money and have a stable job (two factors that makes you a candidate to find your looksmatch). Pathetic

WTF is this? You need to explain phrases like this that you introduce. Is a NEET LDARing all day and refusing to work because he doesn't want to feed the beast of a system "economically anxious"? Is the guy who's content with his 40k a year job that covers all of his copes to keep the rope away "economically anxious" to find himself a partner? Wtf is this even supposed to mean?

And the thing you described as an excuse for fakecels is literally the thing you're telling them to do: be a betabuxx.

WTFucking KEK bro.

We need a more nuanced take on inceldom rather than this corporeist reductionist view on the sexual market: muscularity actually predicts sexual success, so gymcels are also suspicious.

Just lift and hold frame in the shower bro.

Go to the bodybuilding misc forum and tell all of the short and ugly single guys that they should be slaying pussy left and right.

 

[Deleted member 31092]

muscularity actually predicts sexual success, so gymcels are also suspicious.

Men are highly impressed by strength, fitness, and muscles, and they project this trait onto foids. The reality is that foids don't give a damn about those things, in and of themselves.

 

[Deleted member 36576]

Men are highly impressed by strength, fitness, and muscles, and they project this trait onto foids. The reality is that foids don't give a damn about those things, in and of themselves.

View attachment 489981
View attachment 489982
View attachment 489983
View attachment 489985

it's cringe inducing how some bluepilled incels think the gym will save them (although that is actually true for some deathly obese americucks)

 

[Deleted member 31092]

it's cringe inducing how some bluepilled incels think the gym will save them (although that is actually true for some deathly obese americucks)

Unless you go from looking like this:

To looking like this:

Gymcelling will not drastically improve your success in the dating/mating market

 

[based_meme]

it's cringe inducing how some bluepilled incels think the gym will save them (although that is actually true for some deathly obese americucks)

True, but they don't know any better. OP doesn't either, it seems. Calling gymcels fakecels is nothing but blue pilled ignorance.

 

[Deleted member 31092]

True, but they don't know any better. OP doesn't either, it seems. Calling gymcels fakecels is nothing but blue pilled ignorance.

In 2021, being "gymmaxxed" means almost nothing to foids

Men are more dedicated to "gymaxxing" than they've ever been, and what do they get in return? Women treat them with more coldness, aloofness, rudeness, and contempt than ever before

 

[highinhibition]

only a minority of w*men use dating apps

thats because they go, get a bf and then leave and come back after 3 weeks - 2 years

its also a fact that 80 percent of couples meet through dating apps when they are between 20-30

 

[IncelCatechumen]

its also a fact that 80 percent of couples meet through dating apps when they are between 20-30

Send data

...this is literally betabuxx. Women seek resource security for the long-term and genetic fitness for the short-term. This is the dual mating strategy and is part of the literature everywhere from evolutionary psychology to red pill and PUA theorists (who derive it from the academic literature).

Yes, and? "Betabuxx" is just living a normal life. Also, female promiscuity is in decline. One of the factors that might explain the rise of sexelessness is precisly the lack of sexual interest in w*men. The problem here is having such an extensive definition of "betabuxxing" that everything becomes like that, which is simply not the case. Of course it´s a possibility, but a shit ton of cases are simply not correct examples of betabuxxing. Looksmatch marriages within the same social class (which is literally the most common form of marraige) is NOT BETABUXXING (most of the times).

 

[Deleted member 34772]

Unless you go from looking like this:

To looking like this:

Gymcelling will not drastically improve your success in the dating/mating market

Everything but being a healthy BMI is cope. Face and height> The entire multiverse

 

[proudweeb]

no bank account for your face

trust me

 

[based_meme]

Yes, and? "Betabuxx" is just living a normal life.

I'm not sure if you understand betabuxx as we use and define it. The man she "settles down with," who is not her first choice, is the one she using for resources. The primary reason she's with him is precisely because of his ability to provide resources. This is the essence of betabuxx. The arrangement you describe as a "normal life" has a specific name: betabuxx. She isn't willing to settle with him because of his good looks and tall, broad frame.

Read up on Briffault's laws. It's clear you don't know them.

Also, female promiscuity is in decline.

This is false. This is from a few years ago in the US, which is a good representative population of general trends, since the population is very heterogeneous across multiple variables (ethnicity, beliefs etc.)

Promiscuous America: Smart, Secular, and Somewhat Less Happy

We like to think of America as sexually permissive. We’re bombarded with stories of rapid-fire Tinder liaisons and meaningless college hookups. The reality isn’t monastic but is more staid than most of us think. The median American woman has had three sex partners in her lifetime. The median man...

ifstudies.org

One of the factors that might explain the rise of sexelessness is precisly the lack of sexual interest in w*men.

This a myth that people either buy into or try to push. Women push this myth to hide their sexual nature and maintain their pristine, angelic image in society and culture, and the sucker men buy into it.

Women are very sexual and perverted. Just not with you and I. A woman will hold herself out for as long as it takes to find a chad and in the meantime masturbate like a teenage boy who just discovered his dick.

The problem here is having such an extensive definition of "betabuxxing" that everything becomes like that, which is simply not the case.

The definition is very clear: a man with whom she decides to pair with for the long term because of his resources, and with whom attraction is optional and not necessary.

She's not fantasizing of eloping with the 6'5", muscular chad with a chiseled jawline and living in a suburban house with 2.5 kids and a minivan, but she 100% is fantasizing about him choking her and pulling her hair, and treating her like a sex slave to reward her with his strong, alpha seed. She will, however, always be open to that option if the parcel delivery guy happens to fit that bill, while her husband Melvin is at work busting his ass to pay for her lifestyle.

This is literally the dual mating strategy.

Of course it´s a possibility, but a shit ton of cases are simply not correct examples of betabuxxing. Looksmatch marriages within the same social class (which is literally the most common form of marraige) is NOT BETABUXXING (most of the times).

You are clearly and do not understand hypergamy. She DOES NOT CARE about her looksmatch. She wants the absolute best, regardless of her own sexual marketplace value (SMV). See the earlier point about her always being open for alpha seed, while in a marriage (relationship status is irrelevant here really).

 

[Deleted member 27768]

why do you think that is the case