Page 28 of 43 FirstFirst ... 18232425262728293031323338 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 280 of 430

Thread: Incels/Inceldom

  1. #271
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 03:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,628
    Thanked in
    1,413 Posts
    But as Chlod mentioned earlier in the thread, you don't see a lot of rich upperclass women chasing after rugged construction workers. If it's merely a matter of financial standing, or more of a question of inherit sub-cultural differences, is hard to say. But it doesn't seem to be a problem the other way around. That is, a rich upperclass man marrying an attractive, young lady working at the cash register.
    As Agnes said back in post #211, women are by nature hypergamous. I’ve never seriously contested this but there are only a certain number of rich men available so the majority of working-class women will eventually have to settle for less.

    TBH, I don't really care who upper-class women go for but it's true that not many of them marry poor men. They of course mate with the rich ones like themselves, many of whom have been made soft by their easy lives, and then they fantasise about the construction workers

    And what would that reason be, if not a higher focus on materialism in women's evaluation of male attractiveness?
    I said that there’s a reason for ‘sexiness inequality’ (as the article puts it) based solely on the fact that nature knows best. In most species the male will hunt, and sometimes even fight, for a female partner whilst the females just more or less let them get on with it in the knowledge that there will always be other aspirants. If ‘sexiness equality’ was the rule then the females would also be fighting over the males and the latter, once again, would go soft.

    Ultimately, however, we’re talking about human behaviour and there's neither a set pattern for women as a group nor as individuals. They can be very fickle creatures and I’m not sure that a good 80% of them even know themselves what they want Analysing the stats is a waste of time. The only statistical law that holds true, in an approximate kind of way, is the law of averages because the more females you frequent the greater will be your chances of success.

    Speaking for myself, I’d just give this Gini a good sh*g and worry about her coefficient later!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  3. #272
    Whamen Respekter
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Žoreišar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    48 Minutes Ago @ 10:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Ancestry
    East Norwegian + distant Finnish
    Subrace
    Nordid + reduced CM
    Y-DNA
    I1a1
    Country
    Norway Norway
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    30
    Occupation
    Traditional Craftsman
    Politics
    Family, Nation & Nature
    Religion
    Heathen Worldview
    Posts
    2,640
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,680
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,679
    Thanked in
    845 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    TBH, I don't really care who upper-class women go for [...]
    I'm sure the approximately one quarter of males who unwillingly grow old as single and childless do, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    [...] but it's true that not many of them marry poor men. They of course mate with the rich ones like themselves, many of whom have been made soft by their easy lives, and then they fantasise about the construction workers
    For every woman marrying up the socio-economic latter, there is one less woman within reach for the men on the latter below. As a rule, women do not marry down. This wasn't much of an issue in past societies, where the vast majority of men had a higher financial standing than the vast majority of women. But in modern society, it is just one more factor which contributes to the difficulty of men and women finding satisfactory partners.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    I said that there’s a reason for ‘sexiness inequality’ (as the article puts it) based solely on the fact that nature knows best. In most species the male will hunt, and sometimes even fight, for a female partner whilst the females just more or less let them get on with it in the knowledge that there will always be other aspirants. If ‘sexiness equality’ was the rule then the females would also be fighting over the males and the latter, once again, would go soft.
    Our natural state left the front seat a long time ago to the favor of systems and mechanisms designed by humans. We could have argued how 'nature knows best' before the advent of social welfare, the pill, women's suffrage and third wave feminism.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    Ultimately, however, we’re talking about human behaviour and there's neither a set pattern for women as a group nor as individuals. They can be very fickle creatures and I’m not sure that a good 80% of them even know themselves what they want
    Sure, these things aren't 100% set in stone, but there are some traits which can be considered more or less universally desirable. Tall stature, a heavy wallet, 'Chad' facial characteristics, well-developed muscles, confidence, intelligence, sociability, and social status. Got all of them, and you can expect any single, young woman to give you a chance. Got none of them, and you can expect to never even be considered.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    Analysing the stats is a waste of time. The only statistical law that holds true, in an approximate kind of way, is the law of averages because the more females you frequent the greater will be your chances of success.
    Which is why I think bringing up such statistics is important. A young man might gather up the courage and motivation to approach five women, and mistakenly think he has absolutely no value as a potential mate if none of them result in a romantic relationship. But knowing how badly the odds are stacked against his favor from the start, would make him view such defeats more realistically and less crushing. Most people don't get depressed or discouraged if they don't win in the lottery, even after several years playing. But losing a game of heads-and-tails five, ten times in a row, might just make someone think they should give up.
    A nation is an organic thing, historically defined.
    A wave of passionate energy which unites past, present and future generations

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Žoreišar For This Useful Post:


  5. #273
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 03:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,628
    Thanked in
    1,413 Posts
    Žoreišar, I'll write a fuller reply when I have the time but this bit caught my eye ...

    Tall stature, a heavy wallet, 'Chad' facial characteristics, well-developed muscles, confidence, intelligence, sociability, and social status. Got all of them, and you can expect any single, young woman to give you a chance. Got none of them, and you can expect to never even be considered.
    If you have NONE of the above then you don't deserve to be considered, and would never have been considered by any generation of women in the past either!

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  7. #274
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Thursday, October 31st, 2019 @ 03:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,628
    Thanked in
    1,413 Posts
    On second thoughts, I think I’ve already covered everything at some previous point in this marathon thread and it’s all becoming a bit repetitive.

    Statistics are meaningless, such as your "one quarter of males who unwillingly grow old as single and childless".

    I mean, have you ever taken a serious look at some of today's 'males'? This can only be good news!

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  9. #275

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  11. #276
    The lion's gate
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 07:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,796
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,013
    Thanked in
    1,364 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    Even if this were the case, given the amount of posts stating that women constantly cheat, you're bound to find a woman even if one of the 20 percent guys already beat you to it.
    No-one says that, not in this thread or on this forum. That's not what hypergamy means. And if women are going to cheat, they won't do it with everyone of course, they need a motive too - they will tend to upgrade themselves rather than downgrade. Meaning: they're not going to cheat with incels, it's highly unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan
    This is just one of many contradictions in a silly theory invented by a group of dysfunctional, 30-something virgins on the Internet.
    There's no contradiction. Bernhard was either cracking a joke, misread something or didn't know what hypergamy means. And incels are mostly people in their teens, twenties. If you're gonna make broad, sweeping statements, base them on something other than perpetual anger and a boastful kind of ignorance. This isn't even an incel theory, let alone a theory of "thirty year old" incels. But please, continue to give us these pearls of wisdom, not hindered by any kind of knowledge.

    It's such an idiotic post too, nothing of what you said made sense, all of it it is written just to spite the people you've debated in this thread - that's why you made your post - what's your age again? Are you ever able to bite your lip? Do you possess any selfcontrol at all?

    The thing with discussing incels is that it will always naturally attract a) people (from all age-groups) with well-meant but impertinent advice who do not grasp the enormity and seriousness of the situation (yet) and think there's some easy solution to this problem (there isn't, and if there was, incels would've tried it already) and, the real problem, b) a certain group of unhinged, frustrated and bitter people - whether it's here (and I do mean you, SP, no-one else fits the bill) or on in the comment sections on Youtube. It's a reoccuring phenomenon, if one pays any attention to this subject at all it becomes immediately apparent. I've seen incels asking themselves the same question more than once too - "Why do we attract these weirdos? Why do they go out of their way to attack us?". This second group leaves super angry, often incoherent, rambling comments. The kind of comment which makes you cock your head. What drives these crazies is very puzzling - I don't pretend to know the answer - but it's obvious the reason for it is deep-seated, why do it otherwise? A rather serious psychological issue could be the root cause.

    Like these people, you don't know when to stop with your angry rants, SP. And like them you somehow feel threatened by "incels" on a personal level. Do you recognise yourself in incels, is that it? Is this some kind of toxic symbiosis of hate and self-hate? Or can't you understand that anyone would not be like you and desire the same things you do (such as hookups) or perhaps that they come from different, more socially conservative backgrounds and hence don't share your needs - and that's also threatening somehow? Or is it perhaps that people do not approve of your own life choices while you need the approval and praise of other people as reassurance? You project your own feelings on to others quite often though, that much is certain I'm not sure what drives your rage or that of anyone who feels so incredibly and specifically infuriated by the subject matter of incels, but it's bewildering and intolerable - above all it adds nothing to the debate - and it ends here.

    Think about what you're doing and continue to do: where's your rational reason for, let's say, the last (now deleted) post you made in this thread? It's just a bunch of cringeworthy, vile attacks and unsubstantiated remarks and insights.

    Statistics are meaningless, such as your "one quarter of males who unwillingly grow old as single and childless".
    Statistics and facts be damned, feelings are what matter now. That's infantilisation in full swing right there. We're all depending on your intuition now? Because who needs reality to base their personal views on, right?

    This is where the political left, with all its flaws, is more honest than us and will always attract more women.
    What the hell?

    Absolutely not. The left is hardly honest about anything and being a leftist doesn't equal more women. But why are you defending a bunch of degenerates now? Are you revealing your true colors? You firmly side with progressives/the left on this subject and many other ethical issues at any rate. And like them, you attack reason and statistics. Or are you just being intensely frustrated about something, something we don't know?

    But I'll digress, the left at least mentions its opponents by name and doesn't make these little bitchy, insulting comments about them without naming their names, hiding behind generalisations such as "closet homos" and "30-something virgins'. It's really dishonorable SP and I'm quite disappointed with you.
    “When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in.“ – Robert Howard

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:


  13. #277
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,357
    Thanked in
    630 Posts
    After having read and posted in this thread one can come to several conclusions. Incels are a very small minority mainly gaining what little recognition they have from the internet. They are not a good thing for Preservation, Nationalism, or Traditionalism as they seem to have trouble finding a partner. They seem to try and spread hate towards women and normal men. These Incels really belong in the leftist camp where they can spread into people of that mindset and really do at least some good for society at large.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  14. #278
    The lion's gate
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 07:14 PM
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,526
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,796
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,013
    Thanked in
    1,364 Posts
    There are incels who hate women (normal men less so - chads on the other hand... maybe) - but that doesn't put them necessarily in the leftist camp and most certainly don't hate traditional women - and that would be theoretically - in practice quasi all of the left and the mainstream media hate incels. They've made the word their go to slur too. Because they don't care about men's issues, amongst other reasons. And because incels are a product and unwanted child of feminism - and incels are anti-feminist. They're far easier to recruit for the right than the left, politically minded full on incels have no love for the left, and that makes sense. The more the manosphere is adopted by the far right, and the manosphere by common men - the better. I'm glad if incels too take an interest in ethnonationalism, we stand little to lose from it. The media already say incels = far right. And we can't be too picky given our own small numbers, wherever mass support is coming from, it's good - as long as it isn't from pedos.

    The group of incels who hangs around in incel spaces is no doubt small, but then there are so many other single men who probably haven't even heard of incels, and that group is large - manosphere thought in general is gaining groud rapidly.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    They are not a good thing for Preservation, Nationalism, or Traditionalism as they seem to have trouble finding a partner.
    Why does that make them unsuitable though? You could say not having children is a problem (yet one can be childless and subscribe to any ideology), but not having/finding a partner is quite irrelevant. Being single makes men more likely to fight harder and better in war time too - if SHTF in a few years or a decade from now, it's a bonus.
    “When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in.“ – Robert Howard

  15. #279
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,357
    Thanked in
    630 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    There are incels who hate women (normal men less so - chads on the other hand... maybe) - but that doesn't put them necessarily in the leftist camp and most certainly don't hate traditional women - and that would be theoretically - in practice quasi all of the left and the mainstream media hate incels. They've made the word their go to slur too. Because they don't care about men's issues, amongst other reasons. And because incels are a product and unwanted child of feminism - and incels are anti-feminist. They're far easier to recruit for the right than the left, politically minded full on incels have no love for the left, and that makes sense. The more the manosphere is adopted by the far right, and the manosphere by common men - the better. I'm glad if incels too take an interest in ethnonationalism, we stand little to lose from it. The media already say incels = far right. And we can't be too picky given our own small numbers, wherever mass support is coming from, it's good - as long as it isn't from pedos.
    I think you misunderstood what I was saying, I said they belong in the leftist camp that way they can do more damage to that side of the spectrum. Who cares how they feel or what their views are they are toxic.

    The group of incels who hangs around in incel spaces is no doubt small, but then there are so many other single men who probably haven't even heard of incels, and that group is large - manosphere thought in general is gaining groud rapidly.
    It's gaining ground because of their presence on the internet. These are unhappy dudes that can't get laid, so as I stated in another thread "
    misery loves company ". These people should be shunned and treated as if they have a disease, f*ck their feelings they don't belong in a healthy society.

    Why does that make them unsuitable though? You could say not having children is a problem (yet one can be childless and subscribe to any ideology), but not having/finding a partner is quite irrelevant. Being single makes men more likely to fight harder and better in war time too - if SHTF in a few years or a decade from now, it's a bonus.
    They go against nature of man and woman, hence against the traditional male role.

    Most will fight harder defending home and hearth, not for a ideology, hence why the US tricks it's soldiers into fighting to protect "freedom" and they convince the young men that America somehow equals this "freedom" so by defending "freedom" they are defending America. Then there are a few men who just love to fight for any reason or cause, combat gives them a hardon and they like it. I really would not say a single man would fight harder than married man, it might be the married guy will fight better to get home to see his wife and kids. The point is very hard to make why one person is a tough fighter and another is not, could be some just have the blood lust, might be a good topic for another thread.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  16. #280
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Gefjon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Family
    Married parent
    Posts
    1,418
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    104
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    293
    Thanked in
    159 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Astragoth View Post
    Twenty dollar an hour jobs don't exist for white people.
    Sure they do, I worked a part-time job for around that, and I'm a chick without a big career. Dudes can find even better jobs. What's true tho is, nowadays ya need to have the vitamin R (aka relationships) if ya wanna get a job. Most folks I know, including myself have gotten jobs through someone we knew. Someone we knew who knew someone who was hiring, and so on. That's how it is now, folks tend to hire other folks they know, or folks they're doing a favor for, rather than according to competences and stuff. That's a reason millennials have it worse than the boomers, and why many of them are unemployed.

    They just hire Mexicans for half that. Never mind the contractors are looking for specific skills that younger white men don't have because they cant get a decent entry level job in the first place.
    Not with 50 beaners standing in line in front of him.
    But let's be honest here, there's certain jobs that some white folk will be too proud to work, especially if they've got higher education. Some dude who studied law or journalism won't dirty his hands by doing shifts at Mc D's, ya know what I mean? Yep it's true the beaners are more convenient for the capitalist pigs cause they work black market for cheaper, and many of them are illegal so they can't complain about the work hours, conditions or invoke their rights, and the employer doesn't need to pay them medical insurance and so on. Some of them take the beaners' documents and threaten to call the ICE if they do as much as whine. White folk otoh have unemployment benefits, so they ain't in the same situation where they're forced to take such jobs. Let's face it, even if the beaners disappeared or didn't take those jobs, some folks would still prefer the dole, just cause it's more convenient. But look at Israel for instance, it's an ethno-state, few immigrants. And yet they can't find dudes who will do the "lower jobs", cause nobody wants to dirty their hands. Difference was, back in the day, even a job at Mc D was honest. Any job was. Nowadays everyone wants to be a manager or CEO, but without starting from the lower levels. Thing is, incels love being on welfare, cause it gives them time to play more video games and hide in the basement, plus it fits in their woe is me mentality. Incels also have an entitled attitude where they believe the state is responsible for giving them money just to exist, some even want the state to give them a gf. Well with that kinda attitude they ain't gonna get too far in life. Here's an idea: if nobody gives ya a job or ya don't like their conditions, create it yourself. If incels actually associated themselves to do smth productive, or invested their money or smth, instead of using the majority of their time constantly whining about women and woe is them, things would be very different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Women are programmed to harvest resources - they won't feel truly happy or at peace when they have to date downwards and they'll probably be on the look out for the next best thing - it's not some myth.
    Ya say that as if it were some crime. As if men don't have an option B and C and so on... Cmon. Dudes also leave chicks for younger, better looking ones, and they're always on the hunt. It ain't some myth. Women look for security (money + a strong man who can provide & defend them & their family), while men look for beauty, fertility and youth. Even incels complain when they get fat matches on Tinder, so let's be realistic. Yes, women have a bit of golddigging in their DNA, at least the smart ones should, however nowadays with feminism on the rise, the tables have turned. There's plenty of chicks who make decent salaries, so they can afford to marry a poor dude. What they won't marry is a poor incel tho. If the dude is poor, he's gotta compensate through smth else. A poor Chad might do, if he satisfies her in bed. Remember, women like sex too, and the ideal combination is sexy + rich. However, sexy + poor, or ugly + rich can also do in some situations. If a woman has enough money to consider herself secure, and she doesn't want kids and so forth, she ain't gonna care that much about her partner's salary. Unless she's super rich, the super rich tend to be greedy & paranoid. And another thing: a woman doesn't need to marry for money alone in this age. Nowadays if money is all she's after, she can just be a sugar baby, and make more money than if she married some single rich dude.

    There are exceptions, but the bottomline is this:

    LOL cmon. That ain't realistic. Remember, in the end, women want security. They don't like to be "the other". They don't want to share forever with another chick, especially with one who has a higher position in their book. They might accept it for a while, but if the dude continues to push it ad nauseam, she's gonna dump him. The only women who overwhelmingly fit your scheme are those who are fine with open relationships and the sugar babies. But those are far from the rule. In reality, even if Chad dates several women at the same time, in the end he will end up with just one. Polygamy ain't that easy, ya say it as if it would be everywhere. Besides, how exactly would ya "enforce" monogamy? Is the monogamy police gonna look through married ppl's purses for condoms and raunchy photos?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •