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.

Theory The real enemy.

  • Thread starter hopelessnormielit69
  • Start date
H

hopelessnormielit69

ChatGPT-cel
-
Joined
Mar 27, 2024
Posts
192
What is an incel? An incel is an involuntary celibate. An involuntary celibate is someone that wants to have sex, but can't. SEX is the goal that can't be attained.

Why do incels exist? Obviously it's because they can't find anyone that wants to have sex with them.

Why can't they find someone that wants to have sex with them? Well it could be for a few reasons:
  1. They are unable to find anyone sexually attracted to them, who's inherent incentive is to fuck them for their own sexual pleasure.
  2. They are unable to find someone who is willing to fuck them for some external motivation, like money, status, or some form of service.
  3. A combination of both above reasons.
Why do incels struggle with the above problems? If it's reason 1, why can't they find someone that is attractive to them? Well the simple reason is how SMV works. An average man has an inherently lower SMV than an average woman. Why? Well this is because of evolutionary psychology. Only one or a few men are needed to reproduce with many women, so as a result men are more sexually expendable. This means that one man has less sexual value than one women, and the market reflects that. There is an oversupply of men, and not enough women. Women and men have evolved accordingly. Women evolved to be "picky" and have high standards, resulting in them picking the same few men. This is called hypergamy. Inceldom is an inherently MALE problem. Female incels do not exist. Only females that can't get the type of man that they think is worth reproducing with. This is not a uniquely human problem, most males from most species have to deal with it.

Ok. But if the vast majority of men can't simply gain access to women by simply being sexually attractive enough, why don't they just compensate in other ways, like with money and status? Well, it's because they can't. The nature of hypergamy means that women will most of the time select the BEST men of any generation. It's not about simply working hard or even working the hardest. It's about results. It's about being better than all of the other men at the end. It's about having more resources, having more status, providing a better service, etc. You have to be better than average as a man to get with a woman. Not every man can be better than every other man. God forbid your genetics are shit and you're below-average. I don't think I need to explain why simply being below a 5/10 is brutal as shit. You'd have to be an idiot (or intellectually dishonest) to not understand that being below-average in a market where most men aren't enough for most women... is basically the equivalent of being chemically castrated.

Now, there are ways to get around this as a man, even as a sub 5. You can use surgery to make yourself sexually attractive so you actually have a chance. You could... uh... make more money than all of the other men? If that's not enough you could... simp harder than all of the other men on top of that? Yeah you see how fucked this is? The competition never stops. Making money, being nice, even being attractive, isn't enough. You have to be SUPERIOR to most of the other men that are competing with you, as long as you want to have sex.

Because of this, inceldom is a pretty difficult problem to solve. I mean... It's very likely impossible to solve. There will always be WORSE men, because men are born DIFFERENTLY. And the nature of hypergamy means women will always select the better men, leaving a pool of men out every generation.

Now incels, what is the solution? Is it to hate women? Is it to take away women's rights, enslave them? Well unfortunately even if you could do that, it wouldn't end inceldom. In fact wouldn't even mitigate it in anyway shape or form. Let me explain why.

Take a look at Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, women have no rights. They can't do shit without a man. They can't wear revealing clothes, they can't show their face. But has inceldom been eliminated? Abso-fucking-lutely not. It's still there.





B-b-but women are oppressed! Every average and below average guy should now be able to get with their looksmatch right? Well here is the thing bucko. If you oppress women in the west, it's just going to be Saudi Arabia all over again. Rich men getting all of the women, flying them to Dubai, and paying for even more women, doing weird crap to them, meanwhile poor dude's get nothing. As usual. It's not solely women's fault. It's elite men's fault. The men that exploit and steal and take from average to below average men. The men that tax men and take away their ability to provide to women. The men that convince men to go to war and kill other men, for meager benefits that at best could maybe get them to afford a lowtier becky they would have to simp for.

I've come to accept that women aren't sexually attracted to most men. But at the very least you should be able to compensate economically. You should be able to pay for sex. But it's not that simple, because a lot of other guys long already had the same idea. Guys evolved to manipulate and exploit each other, so they could increase their status and wealth. Enslave other men, bully men, get men to kill other men on their behalf, psychologically manipulate them, harass men. And so they had to take advantage of you, exploit you, so they could reproduce. You're not really getting fucked over by women, at least not solely. You're getting fucked over by elites.

The elites want you to hate women, jews, blacks, whatever the fuck. They want you to hate everyone but them. They are the ones causing all of your problems, not women. Women are just responding to their natural incentives, like you. But the best way of expressing those incentives isn't hating women, because it will get you nowhere. You're just making their lives miserable for NO reason. Are you a sadist? Or are you just a sexually frustrated man?

Inceldom is a product of nature creating males that have natural incentives to engage in fierce intra-sexual competition to gain access to women. If the intra-sexual competition is addressed, maybe things could get better. Maybe men things could be more egalitarian economically leading to more men having a chance with women, or maybe men could afford better copes. Attacking women will accomplish nothing.
 
Read every word.
 
Read every word.
Written like chatgpt, you don't need to spell out what inceldom is nigga we are quite well acquainted believe it or not. You are right about the elite men but you lost me at betabuxxing as the solution jfl.
 
women are the real enemies of men
1000009065
 
I think you should've thought a different title but some still choose ignorance or blame which really accomplishes nothing.

Nothing ever happens.
 
I changed the title. Will you retards read it now, instead of listening to the same "women bad" crap on repeat over and over like undiagnosed demented children, malding till your pointless deaths? There is no fucking way you hate women PURELY because they won't have sex with you. You can't actually be that retarded and hypocritical. You can't genuinely be mad at radical feminsts that want to fuck you over, when all you want to do is fuck them over. You can't be this idiotic. Please tell me you're not this idiotic. Women are not oppressing you. MEN ARE. Women are in the MIDDLE OF SOCIETY, not at the top exclusively. This is because women take care of each other. MEN DON'T. WOMEN ARE A SCAPEGOAT. LOOK AT SAUDI ARABIA.
 
I changed the title. Will you retards read it now, instead of listening to the same "women bad" crap on repeat over and over like undiagnosed demented children, malding till your pointless deaths? There is no fucking way you hate women PURELY because they won't have sex with you. You can't actually be that retarded and hypocritical. You can't genuinely be mad at radical feminsts that want to fuck you over, when all you want to do is fuck them over. You can't be this idiotic. Please tell me you're not this idiotic. Women are not oppressing you. MEN ARE. Women are in the MIDDLE OF SOCIETY, not at the top exclusively. This is because women take care of each other. MEN DON'T. WOMEN ARE A SCAPEGOAT. LOOK AT SAUDI ARABIA.
:lul:what is this soy shit? good lord.
 
You’re dancing around accountability. Women benefit from this system just as much as elite men, actually, even more. If you’re going to analyze the mechanics of inceldom, stop moralizing about one side being innocent angels just "following nature." That’s cowardly.
 
You’re dancing around accountability. Women benefit from this system just as much as elite men, actually, even more. If you’re going to analyze the mechanics of inceldom, stop moralizing about one side being innocent angels just "following nature." That’s cowardly.
When did I say that women are innocent angels. I'm telling you to look at elite men, not just women. A lot of people in the forum blame all of their misfortune on women alone. Also how do women benefit from men exploiting other men? By fucking the men that are exploiting other men? They wouldn't fuck them if the men didn't let them exploit them.
 
:lul:what is this soy shit? good lord.
Soy is bitching about women and not men because any man could dominate any women, but men can't always dominate each other. Same thing with bitching about jews because jews are a minority that's easy to gang up on.
 
When did I say that women are innocent angels. I'm telling you to look at elite men, not just women. A lot of people in the forum blame all of their misfortune on women alone. Also how do women benefit from men exploiting other men? By fucking the men that are exploiting other men? They wouldn't fuck them if the men didn't let them exploit them.
nobody blames it on women alone. We all hate simps, chads, normies, and richfags.
 
nobody blames it on women alone. We all hate simps, chads, normies, and richfags.
Good. What I'm trying to tell you is that male intra-sexual competition is the cause of men fucking over other men. Women take care of each other more than men take care of each other because there isn't the same evolutionary pressure to compete to reproduce. Women are nicer to men than men are nicer to men for this same reason. Women do not compete with men to reproduce with men. This is why women are in the middle of society and men are more varied. This isn't just about inceldom, but about how society is structured fundmanetally.
 
I changed the title. Will you retards read it now, instead of listening to the same "women bad" crap on repeat over and over like undiagnosed demented children, malding till your pointless deaths? There is no fucking way you hate women PURELY because they won't have sex with you. You can't actually be that retarded and hypocritical. You can't genuinely be mad at radical feminsts that want to fuck you over, when all you want to do is fuck them over. You can't be this idiotic. Please tell me you're not this idiotic. Women are not oppressing you. MEN ARE. Women are in the MIDDLE OF SOCIETY, not at the top exclusively. This is because women take care of each other. MEN DON'T. WOMEN ARE A SCAPEGOAT. LOOK AT SAUDI ARABIA.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t represent a patriarchy that redistributes women fairly or enforces stable family-building across the socioeconomic spectrum. It’s an unequal class-based system with a thin religious coating. You can’t call this a functioning patriarchy because it’s literally an oligarchy with Islamic branding.
 
There is no fucking way you hate women PURELY because they won't have sex with you.
The amount of hatred i feel for women pales in comparison to the hatred women as a whole feel for sub5 men. I hate women because they hated me first.
 
The real enemy for incels is no one, not even the elites.

We were just born on the lower end of the stick.
A Chad, who is born in the top 5% of physical attractiveness, doesn't have to work hard or compete for shit. He just exists and is naturally able to sexually/romantically attract women.
 
Saudi Arabia doesn’t represent a patriarchy that redistributes women fairly or enforces stable family-building across the socioeconomic spectrum. It’s an unequal class-based system with a thin religious coating. You can’t call this a functioning patriarchy because it’s literally an oligarchy with Islamic branding.
Can a patriarchy even exist then? If Saudi Arabia isn't a patriarchy than what is?
 
When did I say that women are innocent angels. I'm telling you to look at elite men, not just women.
The implication in your original post was that blaming women is pointless and that the true enemy is elite men. And I do agree that elite men are a huge problem, but women aren't passive bystanders. They actively and consciously select those elite men, benefit from the system greatly, and reinforce it.


A lot of people in the forum blame all of their misfortune on women alone.
That's because women's mating behavior is the immediate mechanism that drives male exclusion. Besides, the vast majority of users here are well-aware it's a multifactorial issue that is caused by many parties, not just women.


Also how do women benefit from men exploiting other men? By fucking the men that are exploiting other men?
Yes. That’s literally how hypergamy works. In that sense, women indirectly benefit from male-on-male exploitation.

Female choice is not neutral. It drives the kind of retarded and extremely competitive male behavior we see. If women rewarded the right traits, you'd see more of that in men. But they don’t. So they don’t.
 
The implication in your original post was that blaming women is pointless and that the true enemy is elite men. And I do agree that elite men are a huge problem, but women aren't passive bystanders. They actively and consciously select those elite men, benefit from the system greatly, and reinforce it.



That's because women's mating behavior is the immediate mechanism that drives male exclusion. Besides, the vast majority of users here are well-aware it's a multifactorial issue that is caused by many parties, not just women.



Yes. That’s literally how hypergamy works. In that sense, women indirectly benefit from male-on-male exploitation.

Female choice is not neutral. It drives the kind of retarded and extremely competitive male behavior we see. If women rewarded the right traits, you'd see more of that in men. But they don’t. So they don’t.
Male intra-sexual competition is a byproduct of sexual reproduction inherently. I'm not sure if there are any sexual species that don't have brutal male intra-sexual competition, outside of hermaphrodites. It's weird to blame women for this, when it's a mechanism that supersedes their humanity. It's like blaming men for being unattractive or untalented in the first place. At least with elite men they are exceptional enough, to where it would make sense to suppress them. Also I don't think women benefit from men exploiting men. If they did then you wouldn't have radical feminists trying to do it in a more direct way. When men exploit men, they are the ones in control. Women are just watching and hoping it goes in their favor. Only a small amount of women actually benefit from it, and it doesn't make sense to hate all women for that.
 
Can a patriarchy even exist then? If Saudi Arabia isn't a patriarchy than what is?
I would say that Saudi Arabia is an example of superficial male control and not a functional patriarchy. Just because men dominate women legally or culturally doesn’t mean the society is structured to solve male sexual disenfranchisement. Saudi Arabia might look like a patriarchy on paper because men make the rules, women need guardians, etc.—but sexual market dynamics are still dictated by hypergamy and female choice.


A real patriarchy would do at least some of these:

- Redistribute women like resources (arranged marriages, polygyny limits).

- Restrict women's ability to choose mates freely.

- Prioritize male sexual access and family formation across all class levels.

Saudi Arabia fails at all of this:

- Rich men hoard women through polygyny and foreign escorts.

- Poor men are priced out of marriage by expensive dowries.

- Female hypergamy is preserved through class-based mate selection.


The point is that Saudi Arabia is a gynocentric patriarchy. It gives men symbolic control over women’s behavior but does nothing to change women’s mate selection instincts. It’s a system where the top men win big and everyone else stays screwed, which is no different than the West.
 
I would say that Saudi Arabia is an example of superficial male control and not a functional patriarchy. Just because men dominate women legally or culturally doesn’t mean the society is structured to solve male sexual disenfranchisement. Saudi Arabia might look like a patriarchy on paper because men make the rules, women need guardians, etc.—but sexual market dynamics are still dictated by hypergamy and female choice.


A real patriarchy would do at least some of these:

- Redistribute women like resources (arranged marriages, polygyny limits).

- Restrict women's ability to choose mates freely.

- Prioritize male sexual access and family formation across all class levels.

Saudi Arabia fails at all of this:

- Rich men hoard women through polygyny and foreign escorts.

- Poor men are priced out of marriage by expensive dowries.

- Female hypergamy is preserved through class-based mate selection.


The point is that Saudi Arabia is a gynocentric patriarchy. It gives men symbolic control over women’s behavior but does nothing to change women’s mate selection instincts. It’s a system where the top men win big and everyone else stays screwed, which is no different than the West.
I thought women only cared about looks though? If it was a system purely dictated by female mating instincts, they would go for attractive men and have the non sexually attractive men do all of the other labor.
 
Exterminate elites, got it.

But how will that solve hypergamy?
 
I thought women only cared about looks though?
This is a false dichotomy. There's a reason it's called LMS theory. Hypergamy isn't only about looks—it's about total mate value: looks, money, status. Women do care about looks the most, but there are other traits which are still significant, and which traits dominate depends on context. In modern liberal societies, looks dominate because women have full sexual freedom and are advantaged in many aspects of life—the more mating latitude, the more selective the standards get. In rigid hierarchies like Saudi Arabia, wealth and power dominate because that’s where the sexual gatekeeping power is funneled. And there's one constant which does not change: women aim for the top of the hierarchy.


If it was a system purely dictated by female mating instincts, they would go for attractive men.
It is dictated by female mating instincts and you’re oversimplifying them. It’s a multi-factor filter designed to find the highest-value male in a given environment. In feudal or authoritarian systems, power is the most attractive trait because it ensures things like protection and provision. That’s why women sleep with warlords, politicians, CEOs, even if they're physically ugly.


Rich men get access to women by exploiting the rest of the male population.
Exactly. And women reward that behavior by giving them sex and reproduction rights.


If it were women in control, they would just get with all of sexually attractive men, and have the non sexually attractive men do all of the other labor.
That’s literally what’s happening in the West right now. The only reason that’s not happening in Saudi Arabia is because access to Chads is limited, not by female choice, but by class and authoritarian restrictions.
 
This is a false dichotomy. There's a reason it's called LMS theory. Hypergamy isn't only about looks—it's about total mate value: looks, money, status. Women do care about looks the most, but there are other traits which are still significant, and which traits dominate depends on context. In modern liberal societies, looks dominate because women have full sexual freedom and are advantaged in many aspects of life—the more mating latitude, the more selective the standards get. In rigid hierarchies like Saudi Arabia, wealth and power dominate because that’s where the sexual gatekeeping power is funneled. And there's one constant which does not change: women aim for the top of the hierarchy.



It is dictated by female mating instincts and you’re oversimplifying them. It’s a multi-factor filter designed to find the highest-value male in a given environment. In feudal or authoritarian systems, power is the most attractive trait because it ensures things like protection and provision. That’s why women sleep with warlords, politicians, CEOs, even if they're physically ugly.



Exactly. And women reward that behavior by giving them sex and reproduction rights.



That’s literally what’s happening in the West right now. The only reason that’s not happening in Saudi Arabia is because access to Chads is limited, not by female choice, but by class and authoritarian restrictions.
I don't think women are sexually attracted to wealth. I think they are only sexually attracted to things like looks. They do go for the richest men, because of non sexual incentives, like resources. Men are choosing to exploit other men on women's behalf, because they are otherwise unable to compensate in any other way. That's men's fault, not women's fault. Actually I guess women do have partial responsibility I guess.

I still don't see how women benefit from male intra-sexual competition. Male intra-sexual competition is ultimately negative. It's because men can't compete in a productive way, they have to destroy the competition. Why would women want men to do that, if it means potentially destroying Chads and Tyrones? Male intra-sexual competition is why war exists, which causes collateral damage that hurts other women.
 
Last edited:
Rich men getting all of the women, flying them to Dubai, and paying for even more women, doing weird crap to them, meanwhile poor dude's get nothing.
It just shows that economic inequality should be solve along with ending women's right.

The solution has a name, its called Marxism-Rodgerism
 
Read the wiki GrAYcel
 
I don't think women are sexually attracted to wealth. I think they are only sexually attracted to things like looks. They do go for the richest men, because of non sexual incentives, like resources. Men are choosing to exploit other men on women's behalf, because they are otherwise unable to compensate in any other way. That's men's fault, not women's fault. Actually I guess women do have partial responsibility I guess.

I still don't see how women benefit from male intra-sexual competition. Male intra-sexual competition is ultimately negative. It's because men can't compete in a productive way, they have to destroy the competition. Why would women want men to do that, if it means potentially destroying Chads and Tyrones? Male intra-sexual competition is why war exists, which causes collateral damage that hurts other women.
Holy shit u r so retarded go back wherever u came from
 
women are bad you nigger piece of shit, women are the enemies, nothing can change it. they are literal satan spawns.
lemme give you an example, women in India on avg kill 30 men a day for extra marrital relationships, most of these men are their fathers, sons (literal 3yr old sons), brothers.
 
ah now i understand, you are a kike. something much worse than a woman.
 
Women are worst than kikes imo. Doe kikes come very close
indian women are much worse than kikes, absolutely contraindicated for any case of horny nigger
 
I mean aren't men also allowed to marry multiple wives in Saudi Arabia? It makes sense why the ratio is so disproportionate when their own laws are against monogamy, fucking up everything with the richfags having literal harems.

I'd say the only solution is to straight up exterminate the female gender, no ifs, ands or buts about it, but that's never gonna happen because men are biologically hardwired to simp and never hate foids. Ideally they should be replaced with fully functional artificial wombs within sexbots in the future, with abortion being the norm as soon as the XX chromosome shows in Minecraft.
 
Male intra-sexual competition is a byproduct of sexual reproduction inherently. I'm not sure if there are any sexual species that don't have brutal male intra-sexual competition, outside of hermaphrodites.
No disagreement here. Sexual selection inherently leads to male competition, which is obviously going to be amplified by our modern societal landscape and technology, globalism, culture, etc. But you’re missing a crucial point: this mechanism is fueled by female choice. Women are the gatekeepers of reproduction—they’re the reason males compete in the first place. The traits women prefer dictate what kind of competition takes place. It would be ridiculous to consider them as innocent observers when they’re the ones who control the market and the competition within it.


It's weird to blame women for this, when it's a mechanism that supersedes their humanity. It's like blaming men for being unattractive or untalented in the first place.
It’s not men's fault, but they still suffer the consequences. Same logic applies to women: their instincts are natural, but those instincts should have consequences, and pretending women aren’t responsible for the outcomes of their choices is stupid in my opinion.


At least with elite men they are exceptional enough, to where it would make sense to suppress them.
So you’re okay with suppressing elite men because they’re too successful, but not okay with criticizing women’s mating instincts even though they fuel the structure that rewards those same elites? Also, women benefit from this system even more than those elite men.


Also I don't think women benefit from men exploiting men. If they did then you wouldn't have radical feminists trying to do it in a more direct way.
You're confusing direct political power with evolutionary advantage. Women still benefit from male-on-male exploitation indirectly. Radical feminists want explicit power because they're ideologically driven and desire even more supremacy for women.


When men exploit men, they are the ones in control. Women are just watching and hoping it goes in their favor.
You are kind of describing female hypergamy here. They don’t need to be in control of the system directly as long as they control access to reproduction, which is more powerful in evolutionary terms than any throne or crown.


Only a small amount of women actually benefit from it, and it doesn't make sense to hate all women for that.
Why do you think only a small amount of women actually benefit from it? As far as I can tell—all women benefit to some degree from a hierarchy where men are disposable, compete, and destroy each other for their approval.
 
I don't think women are sexually attracted to wealth. I think they are only sexually attracted to things like looks.
I think status can increase SMV to some extent; regardless, this doesn't change their hypergamous nature.


Men are choosing to exploit other men on women's behalf, because they are otherwise unable to compensate in any other way. That's men's fault, not women's fault.
That’s like saying "predators are choosing to compete to hunt because prey exists—that's their fault." The existence of a limited reward (access to female reproduction) creates the brutal competition. And I agree that men bear some responsibility for allowing intra-sexual competition to escalate so much, but ultimately, women are the primary cause—which is why I believe both are to blame, but especially women.


I still don't see how women benefit from male intra-sexual competition.
It benefits them because they get the best results and engage in highly selective mating strategy—without having to face any adversity themselves. They filter anyone who isn't top-tier to serve themselves. They are inundated with attention and men who extol them senselessly solely because they have a hole between their legs; they don’t need to compete nearly as much as men and have an inherent advantage as the selective sex.

Thw truth is that women don’t even need to consciously support male competition to benefit from its outcome.


Why would women want men to do that, if it means potentially destroying Chads and Tyrones? Male intra-sexual competition is why war exists, which causes collateral damage that hurts other women.
They are not intelligent enough to consider long-term consequences of their behavior—and that's exactly why their depravity and wickedness must be contained.
 

Similar threads

MaliciouslyLarry
Replies
26
Views
1K
LOLI BREEDING
LOLI BREEDING
S
Replies
7
Views
615
Moonreaper666
M
SK6208
Replies
20
Views
687
anoldcel
A
ItsGoyOvrr428
Replies
37
Views
1K
SK6208
SK6208

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top