How do we manage the incel epidemic?

[Costa Fierro]

Mutually consensual and happy relationships don't exist. And I'm not basing it on personal experience either, even if I have a brother that has been in his current relationship for four years and my parents have been married for 32.

Why don't I base it on that? Because where I live, both of those relationships are subject to state intervention once they break down, because we have "common law marriage", meaning that the spouses are entitled to half of possessions and finances despite only my parents being married. My brother and his girlfriend have passed the threshold where the judge can classify them as being in a "de facto relationship" and thus the same aspects as a marital divorce apply. Once you're in that, you're being compelled to remain there by the prospect of divorce and the severe consequences of that happening.

And in places where legal complexities like that don’t exist?

Social conventions and some laws preventing cohabitation.

[Cekoviu]

I think it's awesome that you just totally ignored the rest of my post and then pulled reasoning out of your ass instead. Really shows how dedicated to logical and rational debate you are as well as how much good faith you're posting in.

I ignored the rest of your post because it was fluff. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is that instead of actually addressing the OP's points, and acknowledging that the OP isn't an incel, you went "that person is x" and therefore didn't need to invest time and effort into forming a proper response.

Saying something is X doesn't make it X. You obviously ignored my post merely to make a political point because you don't want to acknowledge the fact that maybe I actually have a brain despite being a femoid.

That's what everyone likes to think, but the reality is that every single person who's posted in this thread is not motivated purely or even in majority by evidence. Our own experiences and personalities dictate our opinions, not a single objective truth.

The objective truths are in the OP. I'm merely sitting back and reaffirming those truths.

No, they're not. There is no real evidence for those truths and the only thing you've offered is your own baseless assertions. Again, you're merely presenting your own opinion as fact.

[Galloism]

Divorce wasn't illegal in the United States in 1905.

In fact, historically, divorce in the US spiked during the 19th century, and by the end of it more divorces were granted in the United States than all of Europe.

It was still uncommon by today's standards, but it wasn't illegal by any means.

Either way, social conventions meant that you stayed in a relationship, regardless of how awful it was. Those same social conventions no longer exist. Society has rendered relationships and marriage unworkable in the modern era, and with that comes a dearth in not only actual relationships and marriages, but also a dearth in the amount of men having sex.

Should we go back to that era of forcing people through social convention to stick it out in marriage? Nope. We've changed society, now we reap what we sow.

So you're admitting it wasn't illegal.

[Liriena]

Ostroeuropa, just so we don't lose sight of where this whole thing started. You began by citing Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering, no?

Its dubious relevance to the issue of incels notwithstanding, it's a damn shame that we have no access to the study itself, because that means we have no actual numbers and no information on samples. But here's my biggest problem: you keep acting like you're just arguing from a social perspective, not a biological one. And yet... this study... appears to be from evolutionary psychologists. Which seems to be a common problem whenever you're trying to prove that women collectively suck: you keep citing evolutionary psychologists.

[Thepeopl]

Mutually consensual and happy relationships don't exist. And I'm not basing it on personal experience either, even if I have a brother that has been in his current relationship for four years and my parents have been married for 32.

Why don't I base it on that? Because where I live, both of those relationships are subject to state intervention once they break down, because we have "common law marriage", meaning that the spouses are entitled to half of possessions and finances despite only my parents being married. My brother and his girlfriend have passed the threshold where the judge can classify them as being in a "de facto relationship" and thus the same aspects as a marital divorce apply. Once you're in that, you're being compelled to remain there by the prospect of divorce and the severe consequences of that happening.

I don't know where you live, so.

My parents divorced, they had a farm. My mother left the farm and was cared for by the local government. My father stayed on the farm and had to pay alimony for both the children and his ex wife. He did so, without complaining till he died.

Since he could proof that all capital was locked in the farm and the farm was his only livelihood, my mother did not get half of the property. But in truth, she got more. Since my father did pay alimony for her. (Which the local government used to provide her with a home and a allowance)

There is no social stigma in my society on divorce.

Both parents have had relationships after the divorce. But never married again.

Did this convince me that happy consensual relationship is impossible? No, of course not. Just that some people are not compatible.

[Cekoviu]

Ostroeuropa, just so we don't lose sight of where this whole thing started. You began by citing Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering, no?

Its dubious relevance to the issue of incels notwithstanding, it's a damn shame that we have no access to the study itself, because that means we have no actual numbers and no information on samples. But here's my biggest problem: you keep acting like you're just arguing from a social perspective, not a biological one. And yet... this study... appears to be from evolutionary psychologists. Which seems to be a common problem whenever you're trying to prove that women collectively suck: you keep citing evolutionary psychologists.

I cannot seem to find that study. If you or Ostro link it, I might be able to get institutional access and take a look (my uni has library databases that give me access to a lot of social science, science, and humanities journals).

[Costa Fierro]

Saying something is X doesn't make it X. You obviously ignored my post merely to make a political point because you don't want to acknowledge the fact that maybe I actually have a brain despite being a femoid.

It's more that you didn't read the OP and rather than being caught out on it, just doubled down.

No, they're not. There is no real evidence for those truths and the only thing you've offered is your own baseless assertions. Again, you're merely presenting your own opinion as fact.

The OP presented facts, I'm reaffirming them.

[Costa Fierro]

Either way, social conventions meant that you stayed in a relationship, regardless of how awful it was. Those same social conventions no longer exist. Society has rendered relationships and marriage unworkable in the modern era, and with that comes a dearth in not only actual relationships and marriages, but also a dearth in the amount of men having sex.

Should we go back to that era of forcing people through social convention to stick it out in marriage? Nope. We've changed society, now we reap what we sow.

So you're admitting it wasn't illegal.

No.

[Galloism]

So you're admitting it wasn't illegal.

No.

So you're asserting against evidence it was illegal?

[Cekoviu]

Saying something is X doesn't make it X. You obviously ignored my post merely to make a political point because you don't want to acknowledge the fact that maybe I actually have a brain despite being a femoid.

It's more that you didn't read the OP and rather than being caught out on it, just doubled down.

No, they're not. There is no real evidence for those truths and the only thing you've offered is your own baseless assertions. Again, you're merely presenting your own opinion as fact.

The OP presented facts, I'm reaffirming them.

Since you only seem keen on repeating the same exact thing over and over again with literally no basis, I'm just going to put you on my ignore list. Have a nice day.

[Costa Fierro]

Incels' spaces online have a long history of advocating and celebrating all sorts of violent and abusive behavior, from grooming little girls to mass murder. They are breeding grounds for future sexual predators and terrorists.

Doing that drives them underground. They become more difficult to track, and it makes it even more difficult to prevent future attacks.

The people in those spaces work very hard to cultivate and enforce a culture of bullying under the guise of solidarity.

I'm not sure you've even been anywhere near incel spaces, so that would be as much conjecture as it would be me saying it doesn't happen.

Men and boys with insecurities, particularly about their physical appearance, are expected to go out of their way to further demolish their self-esteem and body image, and they immediately face exclusion from the group if they ever show any signs of improving. It's very much a (mostly irreligious) death cult where your purpose is to constantly find new reasons to feel innately worthless and to despise everyone who isn't like you.

Again, how would you know this if you've never ventured there?

It's nearly impossible to help guide an incel, or a group of incels, out of their mindset in their own spaces, because anything you say will be immediately countered by their collectively developed and enforced dogma. Your best chance of helping an incel is individually, outside of their spaces, with no toxic community at hand to pull them back in the incel mindset if they start to stray. And if you want to help incels socialize outside of their in-group, those spaces are a major roadblock because they constantly produce excuses to refuse socialization outside of their in-group.

Again, do you have any evidence of this?

[Galloism]

Ostroeuropa, just so we don't lose sight of where this whole thing started. You began by citing Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering, no?

Its dubious relevance to the issue of incels notwithstanding, it's a damn shame that we have no access to the study itself, because that means we have no actual numbers and no information on samples. But here's my biggest problem: you keep acting like you're just arguing from a social perspective, not a biological one. And yet... this study... appears to be from evolutionary psychologists. Which seems to be a common problem whenever you're trying to prove that women collectively suck: you keep citing evolutionary psychologists.

First, it was me that cited an article including that study, not Ostro. It also included several other studies.

Second, it was specifically in regards to our response to incel-ism is largely related to perceived gender, rather than actions.

Third, that was because an article by a female incel on The Guardian (also cited by me) received a substantial amount of empathy, largely due to her gender.

Fourth, I posit that the extremism of incels is at least partially driven by society, in the same way that the extremism of jihadists is at least partially driven by society. The fact that female incels are less threatening is largely because we see them as less threatening, and therefore they remain less threatening - as people often become that which society sees them as.

As for the source list of the article I linked to, here it is:

References

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520.

Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1338.

Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285-314.

Reynolds, T., Howard, C., Sjastad, H., Okimoto, T., Baumeister, R. F., Aquino, K., & Kim, J. (invited revision). Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting.

Wang, J., Lesage, A., Schmitz, N., & Drapeau, A. (2008). The relationship between work stress and mental disorders in men and women: findings from a population-based study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62, 42-47.

[Cekoviu]

Ostroeuropa, just so we don't lose sight of where this whole thing started. You began by citing Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering, no?

Its dubious relevance to the issue of incels notwithstanding, it's a damn shame that we have no access to the study itself, because that means we have no actual numbers and no information on samples. But here's my biggest problem: you keep acting like you're just arguing from a social perspective, not a biological one. And yet... this study... appears to be from evolutionary psychologists. Which seems to be a common problem whenever you're trying to prove that women collectively suck: you keep citing evolutionary psychologists.

First, it was me that cited an article including that study, not Ostro. It also included several other studies.

Second, it was specifically in regards to our response to incel-ism is largely related to perceived gender, rather than actions.

Third, that was because an article by a female incel on The Guardian (also cited by me) received a substantial amount of empathy, largely due to her gender.

Fourth, I posit that the extremism of incels is at least partially driven by society, in the same way that the extremism of jihadists is at least partially driven by society. The fact that female incels are less threatening is largely because we see them as less threatening, and therefore they remain less threatening - as people often become that which society sees them as.

As for the source list of the article I linked to, here it is:

References

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520.

Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315-1338.

Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from the US federal courts. The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 285-314.

Reynolds, T., Howard, C., Sjastad, H., Okimoto, T., Baumeister, R. F., Aquino, K., & Kim, J. (invited revision). Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting.

Wang, J., Lesage, A., Schmitz, N., & Drapeau, A. (2008). The relationship between work stress and mental disorders in men and women: findings from a population-based study. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 62, 42-47.

Okay, yeah, I legitimately cannot seem to find Reynolds et. al from that list after more searching. Either it's been retracted, is not publicly available, or simply does not exist. Can you provide a DOI or link to it?

[Costa Fierro]

No.

So you're asserting against evidence it was illegal?

Do you?

[New haven america]

No, it's specifically you and Liriena disagreeing. Both of you have come to the conclusion, without any supporting evidence, that OP is an incel even though the incels wouldn't refer to themselves as an epidemic or ask what can be done about them.

I'm going to form this in a logical structure so that it's easier for you to understand.
P1: OP uses terminology specifically or very closely associated with the incel community (chad, for example).
P2: OP has explicitly endorsed many of the underpinnings of incel ideology.
P3: OP has not expressed any overtly anti-incel opinions, unlike virtually every other user in this thread with the exception of you and Ostroeuropa (both of whom are masculist or bordering).
P4: OP has not denied being an incel when repeatedly being referred to as one.
C1: OP is an incel.
OTOH, your reasoning is that he says "epidemic" in reference to incels → he is not one.

That's your first mistake, Incels and MGTOW (Which Costa claims to be, despite not actually going his own way) don't follow what we consider to be basic logic.

[Ostroeuropa]

First, it was me that cited an article including that study, not Ostro. It also included several other studies.

Second, it was specifically in regards to our response to incel-ism is largely related to perceived gender, rather than actions.

Third, that was because an article by a female incel on The Guardian (also cited by me) received a substantial amount of empathy, largely due to her gender.

Fourth, I posit that the extremism of incels is at least partially driven by society, in the same way that the extremism of jihadists is at least partially driven by society. The fact that female incels are less threatening is largely because we see them as less threatening, and therefore they remain less threatening - as people often become that which society sees them as.

As for the source list of the article I linked to, here it is:

Okay, yeah, I legitimately cannot seem to find Reynolds et. al from that list after more searching. Either it's been retracted, is not publicly available, or simply does not exist. Can you provide a DOI or link to it?

It's also cited in her article on the male psychology website posted by both me and gallo.

[Cekoviu]

Okay, yeah, I legitimately cannot seem to find Reynolds et. al from that list after more searching. Either it's been retracted, is not publicly available, or simply does not exist. Can you provide a DOI or link to it?

It's also cited in her article on the male psychology website posted by both me and gallo.

Can you link it again? I don't remember where Gallo linked it and I don't want to trawl through the thread to find it,

[Salus Maior]

I really don't think it's an epidemic.

And I don't think that the fewer men having sex is because they're being denied sex, necessarily.

[New haven america]

I really don't think it's an epidemic.

And I don't think that the fewer men having sex is because they're being denied sex, necessarily.

Probably because you can't get denied sex if you don't even try to have it to begin with.

[Salus Maior]

I really don't think it's an epidemic.

And I don't think that the fewer men having sex is because they're being denied sex, necessarily.

Probably because you can't get denied sex if you don't even try to have it to begin with.

Ok, so there's a lot of men who aren't just seeking sex. Is there a problem?

[Fartsniffage]

Quarantine the afflicted. Keep them that way until they get better or die. Develop a vaccine for the rest of humanity.

The same way we treat any other epidemic.

[Saiwania]

Probably because you can't get denied sex if you don't even try to have it to begin with.

It is of course, far harder for some people to put themselves out there and be open to new activities and so on, than it is for them to stay indoors and do escapist activities such as play video games or do internet surfing for most hours of the day. Just as during the 20th century, it was perhaps easier for someone to be a couch potato and watch TV all day instead of going outside. Some people just are too attached to a certain comfort zone of what they're more familiar with.

[Gormwood]

Probably because you can't get denied sex if you don't even try to have it to begin with.

Ok, so there's a lot of men who aren't just seeking sex. Is there a problem?

Just an excuse to rave how it's all women's fault and how things would be so much better if they were all Handmaids.

[The Rich Port]

I think that what's happening is that relationships have stopped being about spiritual and mental fulfillment and have become purely a business transaction, and incels are particularly guilty of that, ironically enough. Incel ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy meant to keep men down in anger, self-doubt, and in celibacy, as some uh, lovely incels who have come on here have made clear.

Being "woke" means realizing that any woman who won't have sex with you purely because they see you as some sort of God to be worshiped is an evil radical feminist who just wants your money and to castrate you and force you to watch as she has sex with other men right in front of you. Women are the real problem, not any bones, not any lack of attractiveness, not Chads (you're better than Chads, after all, because you're woke and they're not), but women who have personalities and want to do things other than worship you.

It's a perversion of what was once somewhat innocuous, but certainly had it's own problems, and that's relationships existing within a capitalist framework, and because capitalism is slowly forcing us to ignore ourselves and our loved ones and focus purely on our work and on producing. If you don't produce, you're worthless, and that means you're also not worthy of love. In fact, if you don't have the money to take vacations and survive without a job, you're worthless either way and don't deserve vacations or sick days or love.

Capitalism is moving away from democratic angles and working more towards purely hierarchical standards: the ones at the top, the elites, the intelligentsia, they're the ONLY ones that should breed and be happy, everybody else needs to slave away until they earn the right. Granted, maybe there's some utility to that, maybe there's some reason, some sense, but it's also callous and ignorant of how you make human beings productive.

Creativity, intelligence, a good work ethic, honesty, kindness, these values are what really matter and what enriches the human race; wealth production, net worth, are a by-product of that. instead, capitalist society is instead slowly encouraging an aristocracy of lazy, entitled, destructive criminals who, instead of enriching society as a whole, make society dependent on that elite's resources.

Capitalist society is corrupted, and incels are a part, a symptom, and a vector of that corruption. Relationships aren't supposed to be democratic, they're a hierarchical rat race to see who can exploit the other person's resources faster.

[Liriena]

Ostroeuropa, just so we don't lose sight of where this whole thing started. You began by citing Man up and take it: Greater concern for female than male suffering, no?

Its dubious relevance to the issue of incels notwithstanding, it's a damn shame that we have no access to the study itself, because that means we have no actual numbers and no information on samples. But here's my biggest problem: you keep acting like you're just arguing from a social perspective, not a biological one. And yet... this study... appears to be from evolutionary psychologists. Which seems to be a common problem whenever you're trying to prove that women collectively suck: you keep citing evolutionary psychologists.

First, it was me that cited an article including that study, not Ostro. It also included several other studies.

Actually, Ostro cited the study first.