Blackpill More Blackpill Data - Share of Population Sexless In the Last Year by Gender

[Deleted member 776]

I honestly couldn't remember if anyone had posted this. Just a little bit of research done by someone tracking men and women who had not had sex in the last year.

Original source:

Notice how it takes off around 2008? Maybe the financial crisis played a minor role. However cast your mind back and think what was going mainstream around 2008? That would be social media like Facebook when all the normies joined and smartphones. Yes boys and girls. That was 10 years ago.

Key Observation
Notice how the line for men is taking off? Do any mathcels/autismcels/graphcels want to try projecting this rate of increase going out 20-30 years?

Food for Thought
If this rate of increase persists how long before disgruntled betas kill all the alphas violently and seize women for themselves? Polygamy is a very unstable way to run a technological society. Primitive tribes have polygamy because they have to resort to stones and sharp sticks to seize women for themselves. In a technological society its highly unlikely 10-20% of alphas would have much chance of putting down a beta uprising.

 

[MogekoLord]

this should be pinned

 

[blackcel]

Tindr was released in 2012. The rate of females who didn't have sex stopped increasing as much, while the male line got steeper

 

[The End]

this should be pinned

I agree! (or at least incorporated into a larger whole) By the way - what happened to that great essay that was here about 4 days ago?

In a technological society its highly unlikely 10-20% of alphas would have much chance of putting down a beta uprising.

Many sexless losers would fight to preserve the status quo. Look how many dirt-poor people fight to keep themselves impoverished, just because SJWs are so damn annoying.

 

[Deleted member 776]

Tindr was released in 2012. The rate of females who didn't have sex stopped increasing as much, while the male line got steeper

I also propose that the increase in female sexlessness are mainly land whales and hambeasts who have been influenced by ever more delusional levels of hypergamy and are waiting for Chad and alpha widows who got pumped and dumped by Chad but can't stand the thought of being with a low-T numale in their own league (such as there is a "league" for women in mate selection).

 

[Maeror]

I wonder if this will get removed by Twitter.

 

[MogekoLord]

I agree! (or at least incorporated into a larger whole) By the way - what happened to that great essay that was here about 4 days ago?

https://incels.is/threads/evolution...in-the-age-of-tinder.39777/page-2#post-705795

 

[The End]

https://incels.is/threads/evolution...in-the-age-of-tinder.39777/page-2#post-705795

Thanks!

 

[Deleted member 250]

I wonder if this will get removed by Twitter.

it will

 

[Deleted member 776]

Many sexless losers would fight to preserve the status quo. Look how many dirt-poor people fight to keep themselves impoverished, just because SJWs are so damn annoying.

This is a complex debate beyond the purview of the current topic.

I myself while not especially rich am a violent anti-Marxist who would have no problem tossing "re-distributionist" Marxists out of helicopters. While on the face of it free stuff is appealing to anyone. The reality of Marxism is collective farms, left-wing coup and counter-coup followed by starvation and repression. An equitable healthy capitalist free market system is more desirable than this or the current system. Just like Monogamy is far more stable and preferable to the current feminist polygamous purgatory.

I never said the re-distribution of women by violent means would be desirable. I think it would be outright chaos and many would die. That being said if you think about the sexless losers who would likely oppose us are seriously sad individuals with the testosterone of an old lady and are often average to low IQ neurotypicals. Where as my guess those who might take violent action would be lower inhibition, higher-T and IQ with spectrum conditions which might make them more diligent and motivated and therefore more likely to succeed in a conflict.

 

[Weirdcel]

Minus guys who got lucky once with a whale at a party, and escortcels, it's more like 35% of men are celibate.

 

[BlackPillUNC]

I honestly couldn't remember if anyone had posted this. Just a little bit of research done by someone tracking men and women who had not had sex in the last year.

Original source:
Do any mathcels/autismcels/graphcels want to try projecting this rate of increase going out 20-30 years?

I am actually an Economics major which means I major in graphing. I think this makes me qualified to be considered a graphcel.

Here are some key points: I cannot imagine social media technology making it easier for any woman to get laid by the hottest guy around. Surprisingly a low amount of roasties actually use dating apps, but I do not expect this percentage of them to increase. The only ones that use are either ugly, lazy, or trying to sexmaxx. Most women will still be able to fill their sexual appetite through in-person interaction. So, I do not expect a decrease in the stigma against dating apps to increase the amount of men who cannot get sex. So let's rule hoseout as a reason that the trend could continue going up in the future. Here is the major thing I can think of that can make the trend continue up: increase in more efficient or cheaper travel. Still, women's dating options are limited by who is close by. As travel becomes cheaper and easier and faster... That number will continue to rise. I think dating apps, feminism, and hypergamy have already done all the damage they will do to Incels.

ALSO: Your number is not representing what you think it is. While Incels are definitely represented in that percentage, there are a lot of reasons that men would have not had sex for the past year not all of which are because he was unable to get sex while trying.

Your percentages are number of people from each gender that are not in the sexual workforce... meaning that they simply had no sex in the last year.

Your percentages are not the number of people form each gender that are sexually unemployed... meaning they were actively trying to get sex for that year and couldn't. We know the number of women that are sexually unemployed is 0, but we do not know the number of men who would be sexually unemployed. And of sexually unemployed men, only a subset of them are true incels. Quite a few of them could be midtier-normies who are going through "dry-spells" or something of the nature.

My final point: While your graph is interesting, it alone does not give enough information to make any valid inference. Though the trend is disturbing, there is not enough data or time frame on your graph to conduct any real analysis. I also have no information on how this information was gathered which is not a good sign (and I have no time to search so we will assume it was valid statistical methods). Men's biggest threat is increased ease of travel by women to collect sex from farther away Chads which will push standards even higher. I do not believe social media progress to be a further threat to men as the damage has already been done and I cannot conceive how social media could make it easier for women to obtain sex. While decreasing negative stigma against social media apps is a possible threat to make more men go without sex, I do not believe it to be a true threat.

Most importantly: this graph does not tell us how many of that 14% are Incels, and that's a problem. If I were to project this graph, I would expect it to level off soon at around 15 or 16%.

 

[Deleted member 776]

I wonder if this will get removed by Twitter.

I screenshotted the tweet just in case.

I should probably get round to archiving it too.

 

[Maeror]

I screenshotted the tweet just in case.

I should probably get round to archiving it too.

That would be wise indeed.

 

[IronMike]

Skyrocketed in 2010, GEE I wonder why?

 

[BrainSplatter]

He only asked to project this current rate out 20-30 years. Which is pretty easy to do. In 2012 the rate was about 10%. In 2016 it's about 14%. So the slope is 1. In 20 or 30 years, the #'s will be 20 to 30% greater.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

He only asked to project this current rate out 20-30 years. Which is pretty easy to do. In 2012 the rate was about 10%. In 2016 it's about 14%. So the slope is 1. In 20 or 30 years, the #'s will be 20 to 30% greater.

Simple and easy. In 2018 it's around 16%. We're hitting 20% by 2022 or so.

Assuming the rate holds.

 

[Kent]

the main problem (although I personally believe it IS due to social media) is that you could also say that more men in that age range started playing video games or something that would also explain the variance.

 

[Deleted member 2047]

2008 was around when social media took off

 

[BlackPillUNC]

He only asked to project this current rate out 20-30 years. Which is pretty easy to do. In 2012 the rate was about 10%. In 2016 it's about 14%. So the slope is 1. In 20 or 30 years, the #'s will be 20 to 30% greater.

That's not how data analysis works. That's called extrapolating and it doesn't give accurate results. There could be something in those years that accelerates the trend or reverses it. We couldn't know that now just like we couldn't know about social media of 2010 in 1980-1990

 

[BlackPillUNC]

Simple and easy. In 2018 it's around 16%. We're hitting 20% by 2022 or so.

Assuming the rate holds.

Big assumption without a theory on why the rate would hold.

 

[BrainSplatter]

I understand data analysis. Obviously there's next to no data here. So you can either say absolutely nothing about it, or go, well in fictional universe if this rate continues it will be X in the year Y. It's just for the hell of it so relax.

 

[The End]

That's not how data analysis works. That's called extrapolating and it doesn't give accurate results. There could be something in those years that accelerates the trend or reverses it. We couldn't know that now just like we couldn't know about social media of 2010 in 1980-1990

Yup.

Having said that it still sucks for those of us right now. But I've been incel long before the spike - being 36 years old and all. :-(

 

[BrainSplatter]

Not to pick on you BlackPillUNC. your attitude is 100% correct in an academic or scientific setting. otherwise out in the real world you'll be expected to make statements like that to satisfy non technical people's curiosity, particularly in the business world. it'll seem wrong at first but you'll get used to it.

 

[BlackPillUNC]

I understand data analysis. Obviously there's next to no data here. So you can either say absolutely nothing about it, or go, well in fictional universe if this rate continues it will be X in the year Y. It's just for the hell of it so relax.

The problem is a lot of Incels on here will start quoting presumptions as scientific fact and using this graph as more evidence than it actually is. It makes us look bad when we make claims with no basis. There are a lot of people out there who hate us and want to prove us wrong. Giving them any chance to see us be irrational or incorrect is not in our best interest.

 

[Total Imbecile]

This is extremely depressing. And if you account for the fact that men lie about having sex while women lie about not being whores....the true numbers are 20% for males and 3% for females. Now if you only include involuntary celibacy you will have 20% males and 0% females, truly disgusting.

 

[BlackPillUNC]

Not to pick on you BlackPillUNC. your attitude is 100% correct in an academic or scientific setting. otherwise out in the real world you'll be expected to make statements like that to satisfy non technical people's curiosity, particularly in the business world. it'll seem wrong at first but you'll get used to it.

Our fight here is an academic one in my estimation. There are people who do not believe that Inceldom or the black pill exist at all, and the only way to prove them wrong is with well done black pill and incel research...

We are an oppressed minority. We cannot let our guard down... Especially when a lot of our population acts hastily and will perpetuate conjecture as absolute fact.

 

[Deleted member 776]

I am actually an Economics major which means I major in graphing. I think this makes me qualified to be considered a graphcel.

Here are some key points: I cannot imagine social media technology making it easier for any woman to get laid by the hottest guy around. Surprisingly a low amount of roasties actually use dating apps, but I do not expect this percentage of them to increase.

One criticism. You say you study economics? That means you study neo-liberal economics? The same economics that said we would never have another recession? The same people who scorned the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff during the mid 2000's boom? I think economics much like psychology is mostly voodoo. What do you think of that?

Onto the substance. In my experience its not really dating apps that most women are using. They just go around flirting and slutting about on social media. Especially Facebook. They are using Whatsapp, Facebook Messenger and others to hunt for Chads and find cock to gobble. They at least had to put a little effort in 10-15 years ago and the hypergamous hook-up culture may have just natural accelerated smartphones aside. Those limited options are precisley what got most normies laid back in the 1990's and early 2000's. I certainly remember those days.

Still, women's dating options are limited by who is close by. As travel becomes cheaper and easier and faster... That number will continue to rise. I think dating apps, feminism, and hypergamy have already done all the damage they will do to Incels.

At some point we will have to draw a distinction between an incel and failed bitter normies who are our worst opponents. They are coping and in denial hard right now but this trend will start to damage them soon. It will be harder and harder to overlook the incel phenomenon.

ALSO: Your number is not representing what you think it is. While Incels are definitely represented in that percentage, there are a lot of reasons that men would have not had sex for the past year not all of which are because he was unable to get sex while trying.

Your percentages are number of people from each gender that are not in the sexual workforce... meaning that they simply had no sex in the last year.

I was actually quite aware that only a percentage of that number would be incels. I never claimed that it was 100% incel. I know that some of those might be volcels, asexual, dead bedroom, dry-spell, medically unfit for sex. etc. The fact that it has increased so much from its baseline which seemed to be in a reasonably similar distribution between men and women suggests to me that there are a lot more men due to join our movement sooner or later.

My final point: While your graph is interesting, it alone does not give enough information to make any valid inference. Though the trend is disturbing, there is not enough data or time frame on your graph to conduct any real analysis. I also have no information on how this information was gathered which is not a good sign (and I have no time to search so we will assume it was valid statistical methods). Men's biggest threat is increased ease of travel by women to collect sex from farther away Chads which will push standards even higher. I do not believe social media progress to be a further threat to men as the damage has already been done and I cannot conceive how social media could make it easier for women to obtain sex. While decreasing negative stigma against social media apps is a possible threat to make more men go without sex, I do not believe it to be a true threat.

Most importantly: this graph does not tell us how many of that 14% are Incels, and that's a problem. If I were to project this graph, I would expect it to level off soon at around 15 or 16%.

How could you possibly make that assumption that it will level out?

What evidence is there that travel is allowing women to get cock from further away? I see that they communicate with men further away to get cock. That would seem to fall under communication and not travel technology. The travel technologies now are very similar to what we had in 1996. If anything travel is more expensive. A basic fare on the local bus was 20 pence when i was a boy. Its now £2.50. I remember when a litre of diesel was 48 pence, its now £1.20. I remember when a compact car sold for a few thousand where as newer compacts sell for £15,000 to £20,000. Maybe budget airlines are the only travel development recently. Mostly they work by racking up debt and then going insolvent because they can never turn a profit. I myself am 30 years old and can assure you that we had cars and travel in the 1990's. Normies weren't all on the internet before smartphones though. That i can tell you for sure.

 

[BrainSplatter]

Uh oh we're about to embark on a 40 page derail over keynesian economics

 

[BlackPillUNC]

One criticism. You say you study economics? That means you study neo-liberal economics?

I study primarily Econometrics and Microeconomics. I do not do much work in Macroeconomics, and I definitely do not talk about Economic systems. I have taken approximately 0 courses in Economic policy. I do not claim to know whether Neo-Liberal or other systems work or not... I just know how to analyze graphs, minimize costs, analyze time series data, etc.

How could you possibly make that assumption that it will level out?

Because I do not have a theory as to why it would continue growing. Unless there is some huge change coming that I do not know about, I have no reason to believe it would drastically change in one way or the other.

What evidence is there that travel is allowing women to get cock from further away? I see that they communicate with men further away to get cock. That would seem to fall under communication and not travel technology. The travel technologies now are very similar to what we had in 1996. If anything travel is more expensive. A basic fare on the local bus was 20 pence when i was a boy. Its now £2.50. I remember when a litre of diesel was 48 pence, its now £1.20. I remember when a compact car sold for a few thousand where as newer compacts sell for £15,000 to £20,000. Maybe budget airlines are the only travel development recently. Mostly they work by racking up debt and then going insolvent because they can never turn a profit. I myself am 30 years old and can assure you that we had cars and travel in the 1990's. Normies weren't all on the internet before smartphones though. That i can tell you for sure.

What I was saying is that travel will be our enemy in the future. Although it is currently not so bad, when women are able to travel from New York to California in an hour or less for a cheap price, more men will be incel due to this. We know that travel will become more efficient in the near future... people like Elon Musk are currently doing their best to improve it. In the future, when women can travel cheaply to wherever they want quickly, it will not be a good day for men. I think social media has already reached its potential as far as making it easier for women to find sex. When travel becomes more efficient... lookout. But that is in the future.

 

[SMAN1997]

So basically, women were caught lying on surveys again. what a surprise. the only femcel is a volcel. wimmen cannot be incel. therefore, 100% were fucking. fuck fuck fuck

 

[LebaneseCel]

It turns out more and more men are developing bad personalities guys!

 

[Deleted member 1252]

Yet more evidence that tinder-feminism is to blame for inceldom. This is not a natural state for men or society.