disagree with you saying richcels can be incel. blkpillpres would be disappointed in you.
i've always said that the problem with incels is that their conception of relationships is based on a fantasy. they want to have their cake and eat it too. these fantasies provide them with a way for this to be possible, but then they get butthurt when in reality it predictably doesn't work out this way. in your post, you tried to better define what an incel is. but the nature of the "relationships" we are deprived of is still ambiguous in your post.
relationships are fundamentally transactional. at the end of the day, if you aren't getting something out of a relationship you won't want one. maybe what you get is sex or emotional validation or whatever. for women, what they want is social proof. female nature is inherently social and status oriented. their sexuality values male attractiveness not for sexual reasons like how we value female attractiveness, but because it gives them status with other women. having a rich boyfriend has the same effect for her, because everybody agrees on the value of money (or else your paper money would be worthless). also he can buy shit that acts as status symbols like nice clothes or a nice car or post vacation pictures on normiegram. this is confirmed by studies that show women orgasm more with wealthy men. it's true that the transactional and materialistic nature of relationships have gotten worse in recent years. but they've always been this way. you look at the past, they had arranged marriages. women usually were socially and financially dependent on men so men had to provide for their wives. the only difference is standards have been increasing dramatically. before, if you had an ok job, it would be good enough to get you a stay at home wife. now you need to be richcel if you want that. really, "love" doesn't exist. it's just an ego delusion. also, thinking women being attracted to your body is better than them being attracted to your money is an ego delusion.
this leads me into my next point. you aren't a fucking teenager anymore (assuming you are following the rules). adult relationships aren't like teen love where your parents provide for you and you don't have a care in the world and just spend all day in ignorant bliss with a beautiful young girl in the flower of her youth. ALL adult relationships are betabuxxing. at the end of the day, if you both are actually serious about the relationship she will move in with you, and you will be expected to provide for her. therefore, the distinction of "betabuxxing" or "real" relationships are meaningless for adults.
really, i am beginning to think inceldom doesn't even exist anymore. i believe the rising amount of sexless young men who aren't in relationships is a symptom of larger societal changes, and these social forces have also changed the power dynamics and nature of the dating climate to make it worthless for non chads. for example, changing gender roles, the devaluation of female virginity, and that foids are a lot older before they hop off the cock carousel and look for a real relationship. the system of sexual capitalism in today's world is a polarizing system with absolute winners and absolute losers. the distinction between incels and nearcels or normies is like the distinction between a homeless man and a wageslave working 2 jobs making minimum wage. if that homeless guy did get a job, would he really be that better off being the miserable wageslave with nothing to show for his labor?
