Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Venting Incels are a direct result of the mechanism of life itself

Jabba The Hutt

Jabba The Hutt

Banned
-
Joined
Dec 18, 2022
Posts
207
Often incels propose going back to traditonal dating as a solution to inceldom. But this is completely wrong. In any given period of history, a big % of men were incels.
And the incel problem is not even unique to humanity.
It is a direct consquence of the mechanics of life itself, natural selection & sexual selection.
Think about it: why do humans even exist? We evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
But why does evolution happen?
It happens, because some creatures are fitter than other creatures, they are stronger, more intelligent, or have some other advantages.
And whoever is disadvantaged, gets killed/eaten/not choosen for breeding by females.
So: evolution can only happen, because some creatures don't manage to reproduce for some reason.
Basically: without incels, evolution would not happen.
There would be no humanity, and not even multi cellular organisms.
Conclusion: The only true ethical solution to inceldom is the extermination of ALL sentient life.
 
Incels are not genetically disadvantaged at surviving, only reproducing.

Sexual selection is sometimes responsible for the extinction of a species.
 
Incels are not genetically disadvantaged at surviving, only reproducing.

Sexual selection is sometimes responsible for the extinction of a species.

na that's not really true. for example women want tall men because taller men have an advantage in a survival scenario. all things being equal, a tall man will win in a fight.
 
That's correct. Only I'd say not many men were incels in the past, except in rare times of conquest when defeated men would have their women stolen. Rather most would die from disease in early childhood, war or work accidents before they had the chance to reproduce. So, it was factors other than sexual selection that led to men not reproducing. Today it is almost entirely sexual selection.
 
That's correct. Only I'd say not many men were incels in the past, except in rare times of conquest when defeated men would have their women stolen. Rather most would die from disease in early childhood, war or work accidents before they had the chance to reproduce. So, it was factors other than sexual selection that led to men not reproducing. Today it is almost entirely sexual selection.

it's true in the past most men simply died in childhood or they got killed in some battle. but I wonder if that is really better. maybe it is, at least your suffering would be shorter.
 
na that's not really true. for example women want tall men because taller men have an advantage in a survival scenario. all things being equal, a tall man will win in a fight.
Height is a sexually dimorphic trait.

It is not always advantageous, in fact it was disadvantageous in older times.
Taller people need to eat more and taller people would have put strains on food economy in Ancient Rome. In historically agricultural societies height is a disadvantage.

Females do not select for advantageous traits, only dimorphic traits.
For example, Irish Elk went extinct from sexual selection.
 
Height is a sexually dimorphic trait.

It is not always advantageous, in fact it was disadvantageous in older times.
Taller people need to eat more and taller people would have put strains on food economy in Ancient Rome. In historically agricultural societies height is a disadvantage.

Females do not select for advantageous traits, only dimorphic traits.
For example, Irish Elk went extinct from sexual selection.


I wonder if the preference of foids for tall men is actually a form of Fisherian runaway selection


what do you think about this theory?
 
how do you feel about this argument made by a ''non cucked'' brocel;
I decided to make this thread after making some observations over here, which are points of which I have been thoroughly convinced for quite a while. Here I will collect a few thoughts I have regarding the field of “evolutionary psychology” in general and its particular application to questions of female sexuality.

Certainly most of you reading this are very familiar with the line of argumentation that attempts to ground female desire in the operation of evolutionary principles as it relates to offspring success; it is ubiquitous on ‘blackpill’ sites. Some of you may even use it yourselves. It is my aim here to show not only the logical faults of this approach, but also its insidious role in legitimizing the otherwise unjustifiable caprices of the human female – two considerations which taken together will hopefully induce some people to reconsider the validity or appeal of these explanations.

First off, we have immediately to deal with the assertion that female mate choice is motivated by an occult sense for ‘good genes.’ The most immediate expression of this would be the ‘sexy son hypothesis’, which posits that women choose mates most likely to produce offspring with potential for the greatest reproductive success. This is to say ‘women like what women like’, which is just a tautology and is absolutely useless to us. Moreover, they do not even know what they like. The phenomenon of ‘preselection’ makes this clear, where women can be put off a man by the opinions of other holes, while seeing an otherwise undesirable man with many holes will raise her attraction to him and even induce her to compete for him. Their aesthetic judgment is so crude that they cannot, without help, even identify what features would as a rule appeal to their sex exactly because they themselves don’t know what they like and need to be told, owing to their severely atrophied sense for the beautiful.

Next, we will deal with the assumption that women choose the men best suited to their environments, which, if we are correct in saying that holes do not even know about their own desires, is already a fortiori incorrect. We can see obviously that this is not the case by looking at modern life. Electricians and bugman programmers, who properly lay the foundation for so much of the current system and ensure its smooth operation, are certainly not our modern-day Don Juans. Instead holes whore themselves out to various hominids and Yidstagram celebrities who abandon them with bastard children even a touch less intelligent and civilized than themselves.

We might hear in protest that evolution hasn’t had time to ‘catch up' with the current state of things and instead relies on the finely tuned selection mechanisms shaped by the bare state of nature in which man lived until the advent of civilization. After all, desire isn’t ‘rational’ – it’s even better! Foids ‘just know’ which man is the healthiest, the strongest, the most cunning, etc. But no, this is far off the mark too. How many weaklings, how many fools, how many incompetent deadbeats, how many cowards, have we seen ‘graced’ with female companionship? And how many fit, dutiful, and intelligent men left in the ditch as the counterpositives? We may even call human sexual selection totally into question as a means of adaptation to the surrounding world. If we assume that female mate choice adapted man to his environment together with the environment itself, both in the exact same manner, this would be to overdetermine evolution. Which is to say, we would have more factors involved in natural selection than are actually required for its operation. This leaves a gap in accounting for a naturally emergent sexual selection by the principle of selection itself, as there is no selective benefit to reinforcing the population-level adaptive changes that are wrought by natural selection with sexual selection if they are both selecting for the same things.

The ‘discovery’ of sexual selection, or at least its formulation as a principle of nature, has in fact coincided with the initiation of severe dysgenic fertility in the Western world. Darwin and those ‘progressives’ under the aegis of his influence such as Herbert Spencer and George Bernard Shaw have in fact been the heralds of Europe’s ‘fellahization’ and regression into gynocritic darkness. It is not a coincidence either that the majority of the most avowed evopsych blackpillers are drawn from populations long adapted to gynocracy. Many men still rest firm in the conviction that the female is a ‘eugenicist’ in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary presented before their eyes daily. I will not go looking for it, but there are interesting data that show the association between reproductive success and various biometrics. For men, intelligence and – get this – height are negatively correlated with reproduction, while susceptibility to obesity and metabolic diseases are positively correlated. There were some other interesting ones, which I can’t recall immediately, that all serve to drive home a central implicit point: holes do not know anything about what a good, or even healthy, man is.

We can see that evolutionary explanations are a sort of biological retrosynthesis, one that attempts to reconstitute a distant, unexperienced past by starting from a theoretical basis - this gaze backwards is therefore inevitably colored to some degree by modern prejudices and results in the reification of modern obsessions as natural laws. Evolutionary narratives along these lines are almost entirely speculative and do not submit to direct empirical confirmation. Darwinism can in this respect be compared to metaphysics, both of which rely on principles in order to describe a movement that occurs outside the realm of sense perception. The principle of modern evolutionism however, is the same one we meet with elsewhere under gynocracy - the venerated woman-judge presiding over the cosmic operation of the world, deciding what belongs to life properly considered and what has mistakenly found its way into life.

As to why low status men are compelled to take up this line of reasoning, I will firstly direct you to my thread concerning the nature of self-deprecation and status signaling. This only partly explains the prevalence of ‘genetic determinism’ among the blackpilled though, to the point where it has now achieved so much consensus that it seems a necessary precondition of having a ‘realistic’ perspective as low status man. In many cases, ‘scientistic’ and mechanistic-causal explanations of human life have a sort of superficial appeal in that they appear to require a cold and liberated gaze freed of all illusion in order to be comprehended, which is to say they appear ‘fashionable’ and yet ‘uncompromising’ (may be helpful to compare with my notes on ‘rebellion’) - a capacity in which they are aided by the cult of Popular Science and the modern anti-metaphysical ‘philosophy.’ In other cases we may simply be dealing with people who are epistemologically incapable of cognizing values outside of, moreover in conflict with, female sexual desire. When a l’Ookism celebrity goes into all his obsessively accumulated information ranging from canthal tilt angles to OkCupid messages, we should not forget that the ground and assumption of this entire endeavor is that ‘woman’s opinion matters.’

The entire enterprise of rationalizing mate selection as a product of evolutionary action is in fact a grandiose apologetic for female mistakes. By attempting to naturalize female desire, our evolutionist would like to contrive a firm and unshakeable basis for female-governed sexual selection and is acting as a flagrant servant to gynocracy. In actuality, female sexual behavior is the most chaotic and directionless force operational in human society and is only given form by the cultural systems created by man that let them know what they ‘should’ like through social pressure. Everything conventionally eugenic is handed down from the mind of man to the loin of woman. By handing the reins to woman in a foolish bout of progressive optimism, the men at the dawn of the industrial age have invited history to chastise them, as they have precipitated the emergence of conditions that ensure that this world will soon no longer be populated by the sort of men who are capable of writing books in defense of women.
 
na that's not really true. for example women want tall men because taller men have an advantage in a survival scenario. all things being equal, a tall man will win in a fight.
The traits women find physically attractive in men are ones which would seem to be advantageous in a very primitive environment. But they often are poor at gauging overall fitness especially in a more modern context. Like I have two half brothers, one is 6'3" and the other is 5'4". The short one is super healthy, athletic, NT, has a stable career but struggles keeping a girlfriend because so few women will accept his height. While the tall one is already married with two kids, even though he's a borderline autistic manchild, and carries many genetic defects from my mother like allergies and asthma which his son has inherited.

Point being that sexual selection is supposed to accompany natural selection. On its own it will fuck up the genepool.
 
I wonder if the preference of foids for tall men is actually a form of Fisherian runaway selection


what do you think about this theory?
As a species we have moved beyond natural selection, the only thing affecting us now is sexual selection.

Dimorphic traits have a random relationship to survival, so it's meaningless to the broader point of environmental suitability and evolutionary improvement.
 
The traits women find physically attractive in men are ones which would seem to be advantageous in a very primitive environment. But they often are poor at gauging overall fitness especially in a more modern context. Like I have two half brothers, one is 6'3" and the other is 5'4". The short one is super healthy, athletic, NT, has a stable career but struggles keeping a girlfriend because so few women will accept his height. While the tall one is already married with two kids, even though he's a borderline autistic manchild, and carries many genetic defects from my mother like allergies and asthma which his son has inherited.

Point being that sexual selection is supposed to accompany natural selection. On its own it will fuck up the genepool.
yeah I agree with that. they are clearly not selecting for the optimal outcome
 
Evolution would happen, since evolution is a change in the gene poll.

Why do you, and many people, make such a big deal out of sentience?

You are also partaking from a false premise, that the only way for evolution to happen is via sexual selection.

Either way, sexual attraction is a mechanism that is not adapted to the modern world, so it doesn't make sense to rely on it in order to avoid extinction or improve the gene poll
 
Last edited:
I wish humanity disappeared, btw. Through antinatalism, for example.
 
Evolution would happen, since evolution is a change in the gene poll.

Why do you, and many people, make such a big deal out of sentience?

You are also partaking from a false premise, that the only way for evolution to happen is via sexual selection.

Either way, sexual attraction is a mechanism that is not adapted to the modern world, so it doesn't make sense to rely on it in order to avoid extinction or improve the gene poll

how does this matter?

is it better if you don't have kids because you starve to death or you get killed in some war, than if females don't select you?

In the first case it is natural selection, in the 2nd case it is sexual selection
 
how does this matter?

is it better if you don't have kids because you starve to death or you get killed in some war, than if females don't select you?

In the first case it is natural selection, in the 2nd case it is sexual selection
Formally, sexual selection is a case of natural selection, but I get what you mean.

Because your whole argument is based on potential consequences for humanity of incels not existing.

Here: ''Basically: without incels, evolution would not happen.
There would be no humanity, and not even multi cellular organisms'' That's false and the previous comment explains why
 

Formally, sexual selection is a case of natural selection, but I get what you mean.

Because your whole argument is based on potential consequences for humanity of incels not existing.

Here: ''Basically: without incels, evolution would not happen.
There would be no humanity, and not even multi cellular organisms'' That's false and the previous comment explains why

well, without selection, humanity would not exist.

and selection implies, some creatures don't get to reproduce (or not reproduce in the same numbers)

sexual selection is just one way how selection works in nature.
 
well, without selection, humanity would not exist.

and selection implies, some creatures don't get to reproduce (or not reproduce in the same numbers)

sexual selection is just one way how selection works in nature.
Well, there is not much I can argue with you then, since, despite arguing why this thinking is wrong, you keep parroting it
 

Similar threads

Kina Hikikomori
Replies
2
Views
128
Kina Hikikomori
Kina Hikikomori
Fire.
Replies
21
Views
523
UglyDumbass
U
AsiaCel
Replies
38
Views
745
idiot_cel
idiot_cel
sociology blackpill
Replies
6
Views
176
solblue
solblue

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top