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.

Discussion Not sure if this study counters the blackpill in terms of attractiveness

SociallyStupid

SociallyStupid

Legend
★★
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Posts
3,657
Just read this:

While attractiveness has a moderate factor on being an old virgin, the biggest factor is not having a high paying job and not drinking (!!).
However, it might be that drinking is associated to socialising, so "does not drink multiple times a week" more likely means "does not socialise multiple times a week".

This IMHO shows that NT is a bigger factor for Inceldom than looks. Even height seems to be not that important (non-virgins were 5'85 on average, virgins 5'825).
It also proves the attractive dark triad: Only 7.8% of virgins have been jailed while 26.5% of non-virgins (which honestly is an extremely high number, I don't think a quarter of all people have been jailed at some point?!). Also bachelor degree or higher makes men more likely to be virgins.

Is this a bullshit study?
 
It just shows that women are somewhat dysgenic. They pick slightly more attractive men (well, good), but also less educated and more criminal men. Maybe it's because of dominance. Non-dominant men might earn less because they think that they should not demand too much. And I just recently read from a woman that they essentially want to be "nearly" raped. And autists cannot understand social rules, but they keep to rules they are taught. So because women want men to nearly rape them but society always tells men to 100% consider women's consent, autists respect women's consent "too much" and are thus seen as even more unattractive.
 
no drink for your FACE, propaganda by drink companies to improve sales
 
However, it might be that drinking is associated to socialising, so "does not drink multiple times a week" more likely means "does not socialise multiple times a week".

I'm a former alcoholic. I used to drink alone every day for several years just to cope with my inceldom and loneliness.

Drinking and socialising are two entirely different things. One doesn't lead to another.

Is this a bullshit study?

Images 1
 
I'm a former alcoholic. I used to drink alone every day for several years just to cope with my inceldom and loneliness.

Drinking and socialising are two entirely different things. One doesn't lead to another.
Sure, for individual persons. But I guess most "normal" people drink more when they socialise. But maybe it's also another proxy. Women like risk-takers. Drinking alcohol is risky so more risk averse people don't do it that often. So it's more that women don't like men who don't like the risk of drinking alcohol?
 
I'm a former alcoholic. I used to drink alone every day for several years just to cope with my inceldom and loneliness.

Drinking and socialising are two entirely different things. One doesn't lead to another.
Same, I still drink a lot and I've never been able to relate to normalfags.
 
Send it to rehab room to get all his propaganda debunked
 
I've already thought of mentioning this in @Racial-Identitarian's thread about him, but Nuance Pill's problem is that he never takes wider lookism and genetic determinism into account and solely focuses on arguing against a strawman version of the blackpill.

So, looks aren't a predictor of virginity, but not having enough money is? Damn, blackpill destroyed, the only way to save it is if only looks were correlated with money... which they are:feelskek::feelskek:.



The study in the first thread found that, for white men in the USA, the income difference between the top and bottom five percent in terms of looks was equivalent to the racial wage gap between white and black men, while for all other gender/race combinations in the study, the effects were even greater.

Meanwhile, the overview I linked in the second thread found similar differences in multiple different countries, with up to 30%+ differences just between "above-average" and "below-average" looks, not even between the upper and bottom five percent:feelshaha:. And that's just solely about the link between looks and income, and not between the heritability of socioeconomic status itself, irrespective of looks.

Then that dude brought up stuff like not socializing, autism, neuroticism and so on as being volcel-ish (if I understand right what he was implying) reasons for being a virgin, when all of those are linked to looks and genetically based, at least partly:feelshaha:.



Everything about autists repulses normies in seconds after starting an interaction, from their voice, to their looks, to even the way they speak (one of the things compared in the study were neutrally-read transcripts of what an autist and normie said.) (Un)Attractiveness is a direct predictor of time spent online and playing games, because the uglier you are, the less friends you have and the less time you spend socializing. Neuroticism, as well as the other Big Five traits have a strong genetic component. And so on and so forth.

This dude is just a particularly determined version of the midwit who acts like blackpill and lookism are solely about sex and dating and that nothing outside of looks and looks alone is genetic/heritable and thus mostly predetermined and immutable. You can't just will yourself into socializing more when nobody wants to socialize with you because of things you've never chosen. You can't just will yourself into a higher income if your family has been in generational poverty for, well, generations:feelshehe::feelshaha:.

You can really see how much he "understands" what he's talking about with the way he ends that article:feelskek::feelskek::

If you make it this far, you are the one percent. For many, this fact is too harsh to swallow. There will be men in this cohort still kvetching over ‘Chad’ as if the reason they are in the 1% is because they’re not in a different 1%. The truth is, having sex is really not some Herculean feat or reserved for aesthetically flawless ubermensch. The idea that up to this point ‘Chad’ is ‘having all the fun’ while the rest go through most of their 20s sexually deprived before they get the chance to be a ‘betabux’ for a ‘post-wall roastie’ with a body count in the triple digits who if he is lucky will grant him monthly starfish sex is also, of course, pure unadulterated cope. Men and women’s virginity rates decline with age in tandem, and the sex partner distributions remain more or less identical for young men and women. We’ve run the experiment long enough to know that polygnyny—‘de facto’ or otherwise—does not naturally flourish in an ‘open sexual marketplace’. If anything, polygyny is the system requiring coercion to sustain. No matter how desperately various social deviants wish to believe they represent the average male, the vast majority of men enjoy a fair share of satisfying sexual and romantic experiences before they hit 30. To some, this comes as a major black pill, which is why they cling to the more palatable blue pill fantasy wherein 99% of men are chronically sexless. Sure, not everyone will always be fully satiated, not everyone will be able to date models, and gender disparities in sexual desires will inevitably lead to moments of frustration, but that’s life.

We are witnessing a slight decline in sexual activity, most clearly observed in the youth, but still, this ‘extended adolescence’ probably won’t be a permanent condition for many. Some people are forecasting an ‘explosion of wizards’, largely driven by the misleading 2018 GSS graph, but I’d be surprised if it ever surpasses 5%.

A cope which is sometimes advanced to explain why most men don’t remain virgins into their mid to late 20s is to say that they’re resorting to ‘escortcelling’. However, only about 1% of men aged 25–30 reported having paid for sex in the past year, so it's unlikely that many are losing their virginities this way. Also, 40% of these men were either married or cohabiting at the time of the interview, so men don’t only visit escorts out of desperation or a permanent inability to attract partners, either.

Insight into some of the underlying factors was gained. Alcohol consumption consistently appeared as a negative predictor of virginity, which can be interpreted in several ways. One is that it reflects an underlying tendency for risk-taking or sensation seeking. Another is that drinking is often a social activity, so lower alcohol consumption could suggest a less active social life and thus fewer opportunities to meet potential partners. Lastly, alcohol can have a direct effect by lowering inhibitions.

The 'black pill' posits that men's romantic and sexual outcomes are determined entirely by variance in physical morphological characteristics, with the lion's share of the focus being on facial attractiveness and height. Autism, low extraversion and socialization, risk aversion were all predictors of wizardhood, however. The stock black pill response is that these are simply the result of failing to meet the supposed looks threshold required for social acceptance, but contrary to the ‘blank slate’ theory of the mind that black pillers espouse, looks don’t meaningfully relate to personality or psychopathology, longitudinal studies find no interaction between looks and psychosocial development, nor do looks significantly impact people’s number of friends or frequency of socialization.

High intelligence and education seem overall to be positive predictors. Like true wizards, I guess they've eschewed carnal pleasures and devoted their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. Some may at least find some solace in knowing that they’re in the company of several prominent historical figures, Newton and Tesla being famous examples. Fewer wizards seemed to have a good personal income though. Whether this is because men with lower incomes are less desirable as partners or it’s a proxy for something else such as social or behavioural issues leading to underemployment isn’t entirely clear.

‘Voluntary celibacy’ is often dismissed as a cope, but frequency of religious attendance was another predictor, consistent with a good number of wizards reporting being so due to religious or moral reasons.

Even though physical traits play a big part in initial impressions, they don’t appear to be terribly relevant to extreme cases like this where it seems like significant neurodivergence is typically required, and ironically the ones that did surface as predictors weren’t the ones that black pillers tend to emphasize.

Some of this stuff could be framed within the context of a ‘slow life history strategy’, though it's a stretch to describe being a 40 year old virgin as any kind of 'evolutionary strategy'. Maybe in a different environment they would’ve tended to fare a bit better.

There are some who may find this to be an optimistic message: 99% of men will ‘make it’ to one degree or another. For those in or approaching this cohort however, that they’re this aberrant may come as a bitter realization. Since the average age of sexual initiation is around 17.5, a wizard is almost 5,000 days behind. Unfortunately, for many it may have passed the point of no return. Any struggles in relating and connecting to people will have only grown more stark from likely extended isolation. Tolerance for inexperience will have considerably dwindled. Wizard magic memes attempt to add levity to the situation, but the regretful feeling of having missed out on a vital part of your youth might be tough to shake. No amount of magic can rewrite what has already been written. In the event that a life of celibacy lies ahead, Jesus Christ's example shows that it may still be possible to find purpose.

It would almost be a brutal and depressing blackpill itself, if it wasn't so cringe and obvious that this guy is so autistic himself that he actually believes that the "only Chad gets laid" and "most men are incels" memes are true and what people here actually believe:feelskek::lul:.
 
I've already thought of mentioning this in @Racial-Identitarian's thread about him, but Nuance Pill's problem is that he never takes wider lookism and genetic determinism into account and solely focuses on arguing against a strawman version of the blackpill.

So, looks aren't a predictor of virginity, but not having enough money is? Damn, blackpill destroyed, the only way to save it is if only looks were correlated with money... which they are:feelskek::feelskek:.



The study in the first thread found that, for white men in the USA, the income difference between the top and bottom five percent in terms of looks was equivalent to the racial wage gap between white and black men, while for all other gender/race combinations in the study, the effects were even greater.

Meanwhile, the overview I linked in the second thread found similar differences in multiple different countries, with up to 30%+ differences just between "above-average" and "below-average" looks, not even between the upper and bottom five percent:feelshaha:. And that's just solely about the link between looks and income, and not between the heritability of socioeconomic status itself, irrespective of looks.

Then that dude brought up stuff like not socializing, autism, neuroticism and so on as being volcel-ish (if I understand right what he was implying) reasons for being a virgin, when all of those are linked to looks and genetically based, at least partly:feelshaha:.



Everything about autists repulses normies in seconds after starting an interaction, from their voice, to their looks, to even the way they speak (one of the things compared in the study were neutrally-read transcripts of what an autist and normie said.) (Un)Attractiveness is a direct predictor of time spent online and playing games, because the uglier you are, the less friends you have and the less time you spend socializing. Neuroticism, as well as the other Big Five traits have a strong genetic component. And so on and so forth.

This dude is just a particularly determined version of the midwit who acts like blackpill and lookism are solely about sex and dating and that nothing outside of looks and looks alone is genetic/heritable and thus mostly predetermined and immutable. You can't just will yourself into socializing more when nobody wants to socialize with you because of things you've never chosen. You can't just will yourself into a higher income if your family has been in generational poverty for, well, generations:feelshehe::feelshaha:.

You can really see how much he "understands" what he's talking about with the way he ends that article:feelskek::feelskek::



It would almost be a brutal and depressing blackpill itself, if it wasn't so cringe and obvious that this guy is so autistic himself that he actually believes that the "only Chad gets laid" and "most men are incels" memes are true and what people here actually believe:feelskek::lul:.

Effects of looks on adult popularity, occupational success, extraversion, dating and sexual experience, and so on, from a 2000 metastudy of almost 80 other studies, of which some were metastudies themselves:

1733331554196-png.1338594


"It's not your looks bro, it's you being a poor and unpopular introvert, which has nothing with looks:soy::soy:,":feelskek::feelskek:.

Also, has this guy ever even touched the racepill:feelsjuice::feelshmm:? It's very common for midwits who want to deboonk le inkwells and blackpill without actually understanding what it's about to never even touch the racepill, despite it being probably the most talked about thing in incel spaces:feelsgah:.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top