Dorks.

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

I always struggle to accept that "women can't be incels because they can just have sex". The term incel has been watered down over the years I get that but if we purely go by the definition "involuntarily celibate" then most if not all self proclaimed incels cease to be incels. Because most "incels" I have seen tend to be like average guys that don't try enough (Granted the reason is often mental illness, etc. But girls struggle with mental illness like that too and we don't grant them the same excuse somehow?) Mid to even ugly guys get laid like all the time, it's not that hard actually (again with caveats trying to get laid 24/7 is probably really bad for you mentally). There are studies that show that the one factor that determines how much you have sex is how hard you try to get it.

Then there might be a subsect of men that can't have sex because of unchangeable characteristics. But even then if you are able to hold down a job and get a little bit of money then you can just buy a prostitute. But the general consensus in incel circles seem to be that this doesn't count. But then I almost have to say that getting laid from a man that just uses you for your body and has no real attraction to you does not count either cuz in both cases it's a cold exchange.

People tend to forget that the original love-shy forum was for people struggling with a specific shyness around potential romantic partners which is severe enough as to inhibit them in dating altogether. Something women absolutely can have.

Very few "truecels" exist. Incelism seems to mostly be a mental thing. Saying women can get laid anytime anywhere is just as reductive as me saying "incels just need to try harder lmao then they can get laid".

The discourse in incel circles also seem to be that love has to be involved somehow for sex to count, but when it's about women then it turns solely towards sex and I just don't really buy it. If anything it's more over if you are an ugly girl than if you are an ugly guy because studies show that men care about appearance a lot more than women, and men are able to compensate if they are ugly (by being rich, charismatic etc) But women are more defined by their appearance first. (sorry for not sourcing any sources I am dead tired and just wanted to contribute to the conversation)

In that regard I agree, because by pure definitions of the word celibate, neither men nor women can be either with enough work. I will stress though that unattractive/socially off men will have a much harder time than women of the same caliber in getting not just sex but love and a committed relationship. I'm not budging on this issue. I don't doubt that there are women who are so undesirable in whatever way that they can fall into the category of being a 'femcel' but it's still just silly to me. No, just because men value attractiveness more than women does not mean its more over for women who are ugly, because men don't JUST value attractiveness but a variety of complimentary values that women can always work on or cultivate. Like being pleasant to be around, having skillset that the man might not have himself (like cooking, or sewing, or whatever), offering an escape from the harshness of life's struggles idk SOMETHING

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

[Holy fuck]

It gets funnier when you realise that incels became a thing over a dorky girl complaining about not getting laid in college...

hisyoricalroute66 said:

It gets funnier when you realise that incels became a thing over a dorky girl complaining about not getting laid in college...

This is definitely new information to me. What are you referring to? I always thought Elliot Rodger effectively started the incel ideology (or at least, he was the original incel)

AryanSuperSoldier said:

In that regard I agree, because by pure definitions of the word celibate, neither men nor women can be either with enough work. I will stress though that unattractive/socially off men will have a much harder time than women of the same caliber in getting not just sex but love and a committed relationship. I'm not budging on this issue. I don't doubt that there are women who are so undesirable in whatever way that they can fall into the category of being a 'femcel' but it's still just silly to me. No, just because men value attractiveness more than women does not mean its more over for women who are ugly, because men don't JUST value attractiveness but a variety of complimentary values that women can always work on or cultivate. Like being pleasant to be around, having skillset that the man might not have himself (like cooking, or sewing, or whatever), offering an escape from the harshness of life's struggles idk SOMETHING

Yeah my main gripe is mostly that we apply different standards when determining the validity of someones inceldom based on their gender. Calling yourself an "incel" is pretty silly to me since very few "trucels" exist. It's a dumb internet word that has been watered down by people misusing it and the who can be considered incel constantly changes too. I still hold fast that femcels exist if we are to say that male incels exist.

I also think we just fundamentally disagree on that last part tho. In the infamous okcupid study that gets shared everywhere it was found that men are more likely to see unattractiveness as a dealbreaker than women. And that women value other things more. This is echoed in other studies too and also my own experiences. Women are more likely to look over certain traits like height or attractiveness. Women seem to also be defined more by their appearance too according to what I have read and gotten told about the female experience.

I will actually agree that for as much as I insist on female incels existing if we disregard inhibition and societal expectations if we put two 4/10's one male one female the woman would have an easier time getting laid. I might even see love but the relationship part I will have to disagree on. Because "men fucking an unattractive girl but keeping their relationship private until they can find a more attractive woman" is a really common experience.

GorgeWBussy said:

This is definitely new information to me. What are you referring to? I always thought Elliot Rodger effectively started the incel ideology (or at least, he was the original incel)

I am pretty sure that the original loveshyforum that coined the term incel was made by a woman but idk what he meant by that too this is new to me aswell

GorgeWBussy said:

This is definitely new information to me. What are you referring to? I always thought Elliot Rodger effectively started the incel ideology (or at least, he was the original incel)

It was some canadian chick that made use of it, but yeah, Elliot Roger will always be the prototype: Mental instability and entitlment from being a chosen, drugged, and under a single mother.

If he were a woman, itd be called middle of the road behavior.

Again, even though I might technically be classified as a "femcel" and I've used the term as a crude joke sometimes it's still so silly to me when people define themselves by their inability to get laid..
There's so much more nuance to people than just "no sex :(" even if men don't think so and mostly just center on physical appearance.

LatinaOfHearts said:

Again, even though I might technically be classified as a "femcel" and I've used the term as a crude joke sometimes it's still so silly to me when people define themselves by their inability to get laid..
There's so much more nuance to people than just "no sex :(" even if men don't think so and mostly just center on physical appearance.

Sure, but you have to remember that this forum is unironically populated by a bunch of channers, and those are the kind of idiots who came up with 'incel' in the first place.

LatinaOfHearts said:

It absolutely does because your main point is this
"Many men are biologically predisposed to like socially awkward girls because in times past they would (obviously) be less popular and have less of a social group which meant more of a chance of getting with them and less of a chance of them cheating on you,"
Men are not biologically predisposed to like social outcasts, they want social women (even socially outcasted men think this way too). The fact that we agree on the end conclusion of "social outcasts aren't saints" doesn't mean we have the same opinions on why this is a phenomenon or rather why it's perceived by men to be a phenomenon.
As for women being hypergamous, not at all, there are quite a couple studies that disagree with you (I have the links but can't be bothered to send them here, possibly on discord). Men find attractiveness way more important than women do. Saying there is practically zero femcel is funny when you're essentially talking to one that knows a good couple of them (plus has linked you a statistic showing that 37% of women are handholdless virgins versus 35% of men)

Do you know the differences between revealed and stated preference? also biologically predisposed doesn't mean it's not psychological. The psychology is caused by evolution and biology. Furthermore none of your studies even dealt with that, they deal with appearance. Once again, no one said introverted men like ugly girls over hot girls.

Also hypergamous doesnt mean "looks" it's about social status. A hot woman that dates a famous billionaire that is ugly is hypergamous, the billionaire dating a hot chick who has no money or job is not hypergamous. these are different terms. You are probably thinking of the term superficial, not hypergamous.

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

Yeah my main gripe is mostly that we apply different standards when determining the validity of someones inceldom based on their gender. Calling yourself an "incel" is pretty silly to me since very few "trucels" exist. It's a dumb internet word that has been watered down by people misusing it and the who can be considered incel constantly changes too. I still hold fast that femcels exist if we are to say that male incels exist.

I also think we just fundamentally disagree on that last part tho. In the infamous okcupid study that gets shared everywhere it was found that men are more likely to see unattractiveness as a dealbreaker than women. And that women value other things more. This is echoed in other studies too and also my own experiences. Women are more likely to look over certain traits like height or attractiveness. Women seem to also be defined more by their appearance too according to what I have read and gotten told about the female experience.

I will actually agree that for as much as I insist on female incels existing if we disregard inhibition and societal expectations if we put two 4/10's one male one female the woman would have an easier time getting laid. I might even see love but the relationship part I will have to disagree on. Because "men fucking an unattractive girl but keeping their relationship private until they can find a more attractive woman" is a really common experience.

I do think it's actually possible to be a "truecell" if you are American because unlike in Europe, prostitution is illegal in USA, and the "incel" men are far more likely to be the ones living paycheck to paycheck and cant just afford a vacation to europe, but other than that, yea most incels are not truecells. Technically if you have an IQ above 100 or something you could still find an illegal prostitute, but half the population is sub 100 IQ. So im thinking a "Truecell" would be a wagie American with sub 100 IQ living paycheck to paycheck.

fkiblaze said:

I do think it's actually possible to be a "truecell" if you are American because unlike in Europe, prostitution is illegal in USA, and the "incel" men are far more likely to be the ones living paycheck to paycheck and cant just afford a vacation to europe, but other than that, yea most incels are not truecells. Technically if you have an IQ above 100 or something you could still find an illegal prostitute, but half the population is sub 100 IQ. So im thinking a "Truecell" would be a wagie American with sub 100 IQ living paycheck to paycheck.

Do you mean that poor low iq men can't find prostitutes in america? I would imagine that would be the majority (or at the very least a large part) of the clientelle for those sort of services.

The only actual "trucels" that I believe exists are people with disabilities or the people who are close to being considered disabled (mentally, physically etc). You are drawing the line at what would be considered a "trucel" way too low

fkiblaze said:

I do think it's actually possible to be a "truecell" if you are American because unlike in Europe, prostitution is illegal in USA, and the "incel" men are far more likely to be the ones living paycheck to paycheck and cant just afford a vacation to europe, but other than that, yea most incels are not truecells. Technically if you have an IQ above 100 or something you could still find an illegal prostitute, but half the population is sub 100 IQ. So im thinking a "Truecell" would be a wagie American with sub 100 IQ living paycheck to paycheck.

You can find ones legally in parts of nevada

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

Do you mean that poor low iq men can't find prostitutes in america? I would imagine that would be the majority (or at the very least a large part) of the clientelle for those sort of services.

The only actual "trucels" that I believe exists are people with disabilities or the people who are close to being considered disabled (mentally, physically etc). You are drawing the line at what would be considered a "trucel" way too low

Pretty sure most of the actual prostitutes in America are bought by wealthy trust fund kids. That's always who you see with all the so called "escorts". Pretty much everytime ive heard a person caught with a prostitute in America they are either a e-celeb with youtube money or some politicians or other wealthy official with corrupt money and connection.

fkiblaze said:

Pretty sure most of the actual prostitutes in America are bought by wealthy trust fund kids. That's always who you see with all the so called "escorts". Pretty much everytime ive heard a person caught with a prostitute in America they are either a e-celeb with youtube money or some politicians or other wealthy official with corrupt money and connection.

Statistics about sex work in the us is hard to come by for obvious reasons but come on now... You can't come up with a reason for why you mostly hear more about FAMOUS and infuential people with escorts rather than some nobody getting a crack whore handy? My central point still stands I think it's silly to suggest that low class men of lower intelligence would be unable to find and afford prostitutes if they truly wanted to and thus the bar for what would be considered a "truecel" would be a lot higher than what you suggested. Also someone else pointed out that they are literally legal in Nevada.

Are you talking to just fill space or do you actually want to participate in the discussion?

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

Statistics about sex work in the us is hard to come by for obvious reasons but come on now... You can't come up with a reason for why you mostly hear more about FAMOUS and infuential people with escorts rather than some nobody getting a crack whore handy? My central point still stands I think it's silly to suggest that low class men of lower intelligence would be unable to find and afford prostitutes if they truly wanted to and thus the bar for what would be considered a "truecel" would be a lot higher than what you suggested. Also someone else pointed out that they are literally legal in Nevada.

Are you talking to just fill space or do you actually want to participate in the discussion?

As for Nevada, one area in one state in the entire country isnt really much of a difference for the other 49 states, and like you said it's hard to find actual hard sources on it, so anecdotes and deduction are pretty much all we have. Take this perspective if you are american. How many people do you personally know that have bought a prostitute? Ive never heard of it happened, in the normal class areas ive been, nor heard of a friend of a friend getting one. Obviously I know of there being whores in the ghetto and stuff, but what are the actual percent chances of a introverted beta male incel white dude walking into the ghetto and finding a pimp vs getting shot instead for being a whitey out in the wrong hood? Do we have the stats on that? I dont think it's unreasonable to assume a white dude is more likely to get shot in the bad alleyway than find a pimp when we just have to go by deduction. I suppose we can go by this maybe, what percent of their revenue do gangs make based off selling drugs or thefts vs selling women?

fkiblaze said:

As for Nevada, one area in one state in the entire country isnt really much of a difference for the other 49 states, and like you said it's hard to find actual hard sources on it, so anecdotes and deduction are pretty much all we have. Take this perspective if you are american. How many people do you personally know that have bought a prostitute? Ive never heard of it happened, in the normal class areas ive been, nor heard of a friend of a friend getting one. Obviously I know of there being whores in the ghetto and stuff, but what are the actual percent chances of a introverted beta male incel white dude walking into the ghetto and finding a pimp vs getting shot instead for being a whitey out in the wrong hood? Do we have the stats on that? I dont think it's unreasonable to assume a white dude is more likely to get shot in the bad alleyway than find a pimp when we just have to go by deduction. I suppose we can go by this maybe, what percent of their revenue do gangs make based off selling drugs or thefts vs selling women?

Obviously people would not talk about getting escorts but just because you have not heard about it does not mean it does not happen. People in afluent areas are able to get drugs and stuff too. It's just about going knowing the right people or just going to a place known for prostitutes. The enforcement around it is lax to the point where you can find escort sites just out and about.

There are prostitutes in the ghetto yes and it will always carry a risk but does just about everything I don't find it a valid excuse. If you want something low risk then there is obviously asian massage parlours, strip clubs (some of those girls work as escorts on the side), trucker stops are notorious for it, then you got streetwalkers downtown. It's not uncommon. Stuff like this is also easy to search up. Also a drive to Nevada would probably be cheaper than a flight to europe (so would a flight to nevada). Meaning that regulated legal prostitutes would be easy for a good chunk of americans. (you can also drive down to mexico). Again this is easy to look up and there are guides around this sorta stuff. Speculating the chances of getting shot in the ghetto is useless to this conversation so is arguing the logistics of street gangs

And I am pretty sure if you were to ask around you would probably be surprised at what you could learn. Stuff like this is common but hard to see unless you look

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

Obviously people would not talk about getting escorts but just because you have not heard about it does not mean it does not happen. People in afluent areas are able to get drugs and stuff too. It's just about going knowing the right people or just going to a place known for prostitutes. The enforcement around it is lax to the point where you can find escort sites just out and about.

Except i have seen and known numerous people around me buy and use drugs, including the typical "smoke pot on the bus" stoners, back when pot was a major crime, and im sure most americans are the same, too, with knowing drug users. So no, i dont think it would be any different if people were able to access prostitutes, so my example holds. Most people know drugs users, now prostitution, that seems like a completely different than to access in America, most likely because basic supply and demand. A hard man willing to protect his turf and be on the wrong side of the law to sell drugs to poors is part of a lot of male ambition, meanwhile an ambitious female protecting her terf as a hard woman then just selling her body to men for cheap is not really going to be that common of a thing, hence it's going to be pimps that are the ones selling women, and most woman arent going to idolize working for a pimp when they can just be an onlyfans whore or sell themselves to a sugar daddy, hence why american prostitutions is something you just see higher class man usually engage in. Women arent as big risk takers as men, and prostitution isnt glamorized like being a drug dealer in gang communities is.

There are prostitutes in the ghetto yes and it will always carry a risk but does just about everything I don't find it a valid excuse. If you want something low risk then there is obviously asian massage parlours, strip clubs (some of those girls work as escorts on the side), trucker stops are notorious for it, then you got streetwalkers downtown. It's not uncommon. Stuff like this is also easy to search up. Also a drive to Nevada would probably be cheaper than a flight to europe (so would a flight to nevada). Meaning that regulated legal prostitutes would be easy for a good chunk of americans. (you can also drive down to mexico). Again this is easy to look up and there are guides around this sorta stuff. Speculating the chances of getting shot in the ghetto is useless to this conversation so is arguing the logistics of street gangs

And I am pretty sure if you were to ask around you would probably be surprised at what you could learn. Stuff like this is common but hard to see unless you look

Look dude, the question was never "could YOU find a prostitute if you really wanted to and put your mind to it", yourr not going to be a "truecell." The question was could a sub 100 IQ truecell beta male American manage to get one. Ive read many stories of their failed attempts on forums sites. Also certain risks are a valid reason to classify a truecell because if someone isn't socially capable of navigating the underworld to get themselves a whore instead of getting shot, he is literally an involuntary celibate, that's what it means, just like he wouldnt be socially capable on navigating polite society to get laid. A lot of inceldom is literally about your charismatic skills because anyone charismatic enough wouldnt even need to try to get a prostittue in the first place.

fkiblaze said:

Look dude, the question was never "could YOU find a prostitute if you really wanted to and put your mind to it" The question was could a sub 100 IQ truecell beta male American manage to get one. Ive read many stories of their failed attempts on forums sites.

I was saying that this is more common and easy than what you would think and you can look this up and read stories about this. And looking for prostitutes is risky so obviously some would fail but there are also plenty of stories of guys like that having success too.

Again you are saying that a poor sub 100 iq person would be completely unable to find a prostitute if he really tried to which is a silly thing to even imply. A standard deviation around 100 is easily midwit tier its not like there is a clear line of cognitive ability that when you go below it you are unable to do this shit and if it was it would definetly not be at fucking 100 and those guys are not truecels because they would be able to actually get laid if they truly wanted to . This happens more often than you think, do you think that all the guys having sex at truckstops are all applying to mensa? Again you are drawing the bar for what would be considered a truecel way too fucking low

Also

fkiblaze said:

Look dude, the question was never "could YOU find a prostitute if you really wanted to and put your mind to it", your not going to be a "truecell" The question was could a sub 100 IQ truecell beta male American manage to get one. I

The argument has been whetever or not those guys would be considered truecel or not. You can't just bake in that he is already a trucel because then by definition yes he would not be able to because he would be a "truecel" (I know that was a mistake on your part but i am being nitpicky) Also it went from sub 100 iq wagie to sub 100 iq wagie truecel beta male. You are adding words now

Nordic_redhaired_Bvll said:

I was saying that this is more common and easy than what you would think and you can look this up and read stories about this. And looking for prostitutes is risky so obviously some would fail but there are also plenty of stories of guys like that having success too.

Again you are saying that a poor sub 100 iq person would be completely unable to find a prostitute if he really tried to which is a silly thing to even imply. A standard deviation around 100 is easily midwit tier its not like there is a clear line of cognitive ability that when you go below it you are unable to do this shit and if it was it would definetly not be at fucking 100 and those guys are not truecels because they would be able to actually get laid if they truly wanted to . This happens more often than you think, do you think that all the guys having sex at truckstops are all applying to mensa? Again you are drawing the bar for what would be considered a truecel way too fucking low

Also

The argument has been whetever or not those guys would be considered truecel or not. You can't just bake in that he is already a trucel because then by definition yes he would not be able to because he would be a "truecel" (I know that was a mistake on your part but i am being nitpicky)

Have you ever been to truck stops? it's not like prostitutes live there. Probably only 1% of truckers ever meet one if you actually polled the stat. More probably smoke meth than have had a prostitute in real life, and smoking meth isn't like the majority either, so it's not going to actually be that common.
Look dude to simplify this, honestly ask this question to yourself and examine your own life, which would be easier for you, assuming you are American, getting a GF or getting a prostitute. Im sure most men on this site would say, "well yea, it's not that hard for me to get a GF, so i can go out and do that, but im probably going to have to do some work and research and so on to get a prostitutes vs just going to the local bar and picking up a girl." Now then imagine yourself as someone who's never been able to get a GF, which is something most men are able to do, would not getting a prostitute be just as hard or harder for him if he cant do the thing you find easier in your own life. Yes you can say to him, "bro just do this research and these things, etc" but you can also do the exact same thing for a GF, IE guys learning red pill/PUA stuff on the internet. If he has to learn and get experience it makes far more sense to learn how to get a GF which is easier.

fkiblaze said:

American manage to get one. Ive read many stories of their failed attempts on forums sites. Also certain risks are a valid reason to classify a truecell because if someone isn't socially capable of navigating the underworld to get themselves a whore instead of getting shot, he is literally an involuntary celibate, that's what it means, just like he wouldnt be socially capable on navigating polite society to get laid. A lot of inceldom is literally about your charismatic skills because anyone charismatic enough wouldnt even need to try to get a prostittue in the first place.

Again you can also read stories of their success. And I don't think inhibitions and risk are that valid of a reason either that was the premise from the start. Obviously it carries with it some risk but do you seriously believe that someone with sub 100 iq (Lets say 99 for this example) would literally be unable to find and locate a prostitute without getting shot the majority of the time? you do know that all sex is risky right? Do you think that there is a mental block that this person would have that a 101 would not have?