4 ms·

It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate if only they lower their standards. If

It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate if only they lower their standards. If there are more short men than women that are willing to date short men, some short men will still be able to find partners, but not all of them. More generally speaking, some men have so many unfavorable traits that no female would accept them, because females almost always have more and better options. Those unfortunate individuals are discarded from the gene pool. I'm not saying that every self-described incel is actually in that set of unfortunate individuals, but this is how sexual selection works in lots of species, including our own.

edanm 6y ago
> It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate if only they lower their standards. Firstly, I didn't say they have to lower their standards. > It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate [...] I agree that that would be faulty reasoning. I was combatting the opposite reasoning, which is that some traits or combinations of traits (like being short) are disqualifying. E.g. your parent comment in which you wrote: "If you are very short, your attire can not make up for it." I could totally be misunderstanding your meaning or the incel worldview, but as I said, it comes off to me as very binary - there is some "threshold" of attractiveness/traits, which if you are under, you are therefore unable to find a sexual partner. My contention is that almost every one of these traits or combinatios-of-traits can be found in someone who is in a sexual relationship, and therefore that can't be true. > More generally speaking, some men have so many unfavorable traits that no female would accept them, because females almost always have more and better options. Those unfortunate individuals are discarded from the gene pool. This is in incorrect view of the world (barring extreme examples like severe physical deformities or mental issues). People aren't ranked in some kind of linear way from "more attractive" to "less attractive", lined up, and then can only find partners who agree with their level. There are many reasons: - People are varied and have different preferences - some women like short men, etc. - The same person has different preferences at different times. - Most people will have more than one sexual partner. All of these combine to make it so that effectively, almost everyone can find a sexual partner. And this is not just a theroetical idea either - as I posted in another comment, according to some random studies I just Googled, <0.5% of people have never had a sexual experience by age 40. Moreover, I can tell you that almost everyone I know, including some fairly odd, nerdy, shy, introverted people who had had no dates by the time they were 25, still ended up in happy relationships. (And I say almost mostly because I lost touch with some people and don't know how their story turned out). -- Let me just close by saying that if you truly believe you (or some/most people posting on incel forums) are incapable of ever having a sexual relationship, I empathize with you - it must be very unhappy to believe you will never have something that you want and see so many other people enjoying. But based on my own life experience, and where the people around me are at at age 35, I can tell you that I absolutely believe that almost everyone (>99.5% of people) posting on HN is able to find a sexual partner.
- privacy_bodger 6y ago
  For what it's worth I can think of people in their forties and fifties who are still perennially single, despite apparent efforts to make it otherwise. I mean, they could maybe hit the gym, or get rich, or read The Game, or become ardent feminists, or buy Thai brides online (after getting rich). I'm sure the options have not been exhausted. But I think at some point you have to admit that these people were just dealt a shit hand and there's probably not much they can do about it. Or, if you think they should just work to fix the problem, you have to understand that it's not at all obvious how to do that. I mean honestly, I don't understand why serial killers can find partners and the people I'm thinking about can't. I've no idea what they ought to do about it.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > I agree that that would be faulty reasoning. I was combatting the opposite reasoning, which is that some traits or combinations of traits (like being short) are disqualifying. E.g. your parent comment in which you wrote: "If you are very short, your attire can not make up for it." Being short is in fact a huge disadvantage for dating, this is well established, for example in the study I gave you. Most females will indeed disqualify a short male from consideration. Of course every dating pool is different and it might contain the odd exception where a female prefers to date a short guy, but then she will still prefer the affluent or handsome short guy over the other short guys, which are now out of mates. > People aren't ranked in some kind of linear way from "more attractive" to "less attractive", lined up, and then can only find partners who agree with their level. There are many reasons... I'll call this the "cosmic justice fantasy". In reality, attractiveness is fairly objective and measurable, with fairly low variance across individuals. There are of course always exceptions at the tail ends, but it doesn't make much of a difference. > All of these combine to make it so that effectively, almost everyone can find a sexual partner. At this point, I think we should differentiate between finding a a partner and having a sexual encounter at least once in your life. > And this is not just a theroetical idea either - as I posted in another comment, according to some random studies I just Googled, <0.5% of people have never had a sexual experience by age 40 What this actually says is that less than 0.5% of people admit to never having had a sexual experience, which also would include an encounter with a prostitute. Even at that low-ball rate, we'd be talking about millions of people in the US. > Let me just close by saying that if you truly believe you (or some/most people posting on incel forums) are incapable of ever having a sexual relationship, I empathize with you - it must be very unhappy to believe you will never have something that you want and see so many other people enjoying. To be clear: I'm neither short, nor bad-looking, nor do I lack sexual experience. I'm neither an incel, nor incel-affiliated, nor do I personally know any actual (self-identified) incels. I don't read discussions on incel forums. You may well be right in that a large amount of incel forum dwellers really only look blame personal failures on some immutable characteristic, because that's just what people like to do. I happen to be interested in the some of the science that an incel might be interested in, because I prefer to know what's real, as opposed to what people would like to be real.

edanm 6y ago

> It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate if only they lower their standards. Firstly, I didn't say they have to lower their standards. > It's poor reasoning to conclude that because some (for example) short men find a mate than all short men can find a mate [...] I agree that that would be faulty reasoning. I was combatting the opposite reasoning, which is that some traits or combinations of traits (like being short) are disqualifying. E.g. your parent comment in which you wrote: "If you are very short, your attire can not make up for it." I could totally be misunderstanding your meaning or the incel worldview, but as I said, it comes off to me as very binary - there is some "threshold" of attractiveness/traits, which if you are under, you are therefore unable to find a sexual partner. My contention is that almost every one of these traits or combinatios-of-traits can be found in someone who is in a sexual relationship, and therefore that can't be true. > More generally speaking, some men have so many unfavorable traits that no female would accept them, because females almost always have more and better options. Those unfortunate individuals are discarded from the gene pool. This is in incorrect view of the world (barring extreme examples like severe physical deformities or mental issues). People aren't ranked in some kind of linear way from "more attractive" to "less attractive", lined up, and then can only find partners who agree with their level. There are many reasons: - People are varied and have different preferences - some women like short men, etc. - The same person has different preferences at different times. - Most people will have more than one sexual partner. All of these combine to make it so that effectively, almost everyone can find a sexual partner. And this is not just a theroetical idea either - as I posted in another comment, according to some random studies I just Googled, <0.5% of people have never had a sexual experience by age 40. Moreover, I can tell you that almost everyone I know, including some fairly odd, nerdy, shy, introverted people who had had no dates by the time they were 25, still ended up in happy relationships. (And I say almost mostly because I lost touch with some people and don't know how their story turned out). -- Let me just close by saying that if you truly believe you (or some/most people posting on incel forums) are incapable of ever having a sexual relationship, I empathize with you - it must be very unhappy to believe you will never have something that you want and see so many other people enjoying. But based on my own life experience, and where the people around me are at at age 35, I can tell you that I absolutely believe that almost everyone (>99.5% of people) posting on HN is able to find a sexual partner.

privacy_bodger 6y ago
For what it's worth I can think of people in their forties and fifties who are still perennially single, despite apparent efforts to make it otherwise. I mean, they could maybe hit the gym, or get rich, or read The Game, or become ardent feminists, or buy Thai brides online (after getting rich). I'm sure the options have not been exhausted. But I think at some point you have to admit that these people were just dealt a shit hand and there's probably not much they can do about it. Or, if you think they should just work to fix the problem, you have to understand that it's not at all obvious how to do that. I mean honestly, I don't understand why serial killers can find partners and the people I'm thinking about can't. I've no idea what they ought to do about it.
gridlockd 6y ago
> I agree that that would be faulty reasoning. I was combatting the opposite reasoning, which is that some traits or combinations of traits (like being short) are disqualifying. E.g. your parent comment in which you wrote: "If you are very short, your attire can not make up for it." Being short is in fact a huge disadvantage for dating, this is well established, for example in the study I gave you. Most females will indeed disqualify a short male from consideration. Of course every dating pool is different and it might contain the odd exception where a female prefers to date a short guy, but then she will still prefer the affluent or handsome short guy over the other short guys, which are now out of mates. > People aren't ranked in some kind of linear way from "more attractive" to "less attractive", lined up, and then can only find partners who agree with their level. There are many reasons... I'll call this the "cosmic justice fantasy". In reality, attractiveness is fairly objective and measurable, with fairly low variance across individuals. There are of course always exceptions at the tail ends, but it doesn't make much of a difference. > All of these combine to make it so that effectively, almost everyone can find a sexual partner. At this point, I think we should differentiate between finding a a partner and having a sexual encounter at least once in your life. > And this is not just a theroetical idea either - as I posted in another comment, according to some random studies I just Googled, <0.5% of people have never had a sexual experience by age 40 What this actually says is that less than 0.5% of people admit to never having had a sexual experience, which also would include an encounter with a prostitute. Even at that low-ball rate, we'd be talking about millions of people in the US. > Let me just close by saying that if you truly believe you (or some/most people posting on incel forums) are incapable of ever having a sexual relationship, I empathize with you - it must be very unhappy to believe you will never have something that you want and see so many other people enjoying. To be clear: I'm neither short, nor bad-looking, nor do I lack sexual experience. I'm neither an incel, nor incel-affiliated, nor do I personally know any actual (self-identified) incels. I don't read discussions on incel forums. You may well be right in that a large amount of incel forum dwellers really only look blame personal failures on some immutable characteristic, because that's just what people like to do. I happen to be interested in the some of the science that an incel might be interested in, because I prefer to know what's real, as opposed to what people would like to be real.