Something I have noticed about the incel community since it's very conception is the everlasting debate about just what the so-called "definitive" cause of inceldom is. However, my belief is that this all stems from the human desire to simplify one's problems to something digestable by stripping it of any kind of nuance.
In my opinion, inceldom is instead caused by multiple variables, variables which all women will compare and contrast when screening for a potential mate.
For example, a short, Indian man who is mildly famous, neurotypical and looks like this has a very low chance of ending up an incel.
Meanwhile, a tall, white man who is highly autistic and looks like this has a very high chance of ending up an incel.
This is why incels are so diverse in nature in spite of being in the exact same position as one-other. Because in reality, women have a checklist of desirable traits, those being looks, money, status, neurotypicality, height, and race. Whenever they look upon a man, they ponder things such as "Is him being 6'8 enough to compensate for his weak jawline?" or "Is him being a multi-millionaire enough to compensate for him being 5'1?" Think of it as an old-school RPG, where different stat percentages contribute to the overall character build.
Of course, all of these variables have a "bare minimum" threshold that, if crossed, cancels out the rest. For example, being tall, white, neurotypical and mildly famous will not work if the man in question has ridiculously subhuman facial features. Just how being "normie "level attractive will not work if the man in question is Chris-Chan levels of autistic.
What I am ultimately trying to say here is that we should stop parroting "JUST BE X!!" and instead acknowledge all of the different factors that can make someone an incel. To me, whether or not someone is a "truecel" compared to a "fakecel" really comes down to "Have they ever received romantic/sexual attention from women?" nothing more.
In my opinion, inceldom is instead caused by multiple variables, variables which all women will compare and contrast when screening for a potential mate.
For example, a short, Indian man who is mildly famous, neurotypical and looks like this has a very low chance of ending up an incel.
Meanwhile, a tall, white man who is highly autistic and looks like this has a very high chance of ending up an incel.
This is why incels are so diverse in nature in spite of being in the exact same position as one-other. Because in reality, women have a checklist of desirable traits, those being looks, money, status, neurotypicality, height, and race. Whenever they look upon a man, they ponder things such as "Is him being 6'8 enough to compensate for his weak jawline?" or "Is him being a multi-millionaire enough to compensate for him being 5'1?" Think of it as an old-school RPG, where different stat percentages contribute to the overall character build.
Of course, all of these variables have a "bare minimum" threshold that, if crossed, cancels out the rest. For example, being tall, white, neurotypical and mildly famous will not work if the man in question has ridiculously subhuman facial features. Just how being "normie "level attractive will not work if the man in question is Chris-Chan levels of autistic.
What I am ultimately trying to say here is that we should stop parroting "JUST BE X!!" and instead acknowledge all of the different factors that can make someone an incel. To me, whether or not someone is a "truecel" compared to a "fakecel" really comes down to "Have they ever received romantic/sexual attention from women?" nothing more.
