Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 2

Thoughts on ‘Incels’ and Alleged Public Reactions Towards Them: 2

I was trying to write another 1000-word article to continue onwards from the previous one in this series, when I came across a set of interesting graphical representations about the extent of involuntary celibacy in the 22-35 age group (non-married) in USA. Well.. it seems that the rates of incel-dom are a bit higher than most people would like to imagine, even in an age group who should under ideal conditions have the lowest percentage of incels. But that is not the most interesting part of these graphical representations..

Well.. have a look at the first one below. Notice anything peculiar? So why is the percentage of male incels almost twice that of female incels? And why is so high at over 14%? And why did they diverge so much starting sometime around 2007-2008? Does it also not suggest that non-incel women are sharing guys? I mean.. how else do you account for the peculiar gap between percentages for men and women? BTW, here is the original link for that graph.

Anyway, let us move on the next set of graph (below) which shows an even more interesting piece of information. Did you notice that percentage of incel females of ‘other’ races has kept on going down over the year to reach levels seen in ‘white’ and ‘black’ group? But wait.. why has the percentage of male ‘incels’ of other races increased to over 30%? and why did that trend start around 2007-2008? Here is the link to original source.

This data got me thinking and digging even deeper to find similar data. Thankfully, I did not have to dig too far. Have a look at a set of graphs (below) containing a more detailed analysis of incel-dom by race. Once again, you can see that about 40% of single men in the 22-35 age group who are neither ‘white’ nor black’ are functionally incel. Their female counterparts have pretty low rates of incel-dom, and are comparable to ‘white’ and ‘black’ women. In other words, a lot of ‘non-white’ and ‘non-black’ women are getting it on with ‘white’ and ‘black’ men. And here is the link to original source.

To be fair, none of this should come as a surprise to anybody who has spent time in certain parts of the internet or has walked around the nicer urban areas of coastal USA. I mean.. what is the ratio of white male- asian female couple to asian male- white female or really any female couples? I am, however curious to see how the data will look if you extend age range upto say.. 50- because by that age, the rates of incel-dom in white men will almost certainly increase to fairly significant percentages.

FYI, I will post the next text-heavy post in this series sometime in the next couple of days.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. P Ray
    May 12, 2018 at 5:02 am

    I can answer the question: What happened towards 2007-2008 was the introduction of the smartphone and on-the-go harems for the most attractive guys, along with exponential “feminist consciousness raising” and the rise of “I don’t owe men anything” snarly attitudes – only directed towards regular/ugly guys though.

  2. P Ray
    May 12, 2018 at 5:32 am

    Another researcher may have data you need for even more blackpilling


    The reason for my death is simple. I have concluded that in the realm of dating and relationships the primary characteristics required for men are as follows.

    Height: above 5ft10
    Race: huge bias towards caucasian and black
    Wealth: or other manifestation of power

    Wilkes McDermid (William Chong) agrees that a lot of women lie to ethnic men about what they really find attractive, then say if the men refuse to accept bad treatment that “their personality is the problem”. Of course, these same women don’t mind being raped by Jeremy Meeks.

    • P Ray
      May 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm

      From returnofkings.com/60690/wikes-mcdermid-was-yet-another-victim-of-a-society-that-doesnt-care-about-fulfilling-mens-basic-needs

      And as for the folks who swear by stuff like Cognitive Behavorial Therapy and the like—CBT hasn’t proven itself effective in assisting men with meeting their mating goals. If they were, there would be no need for game in the first place, because therapy-based models would be getting the job done.

      Most of the game and pickup critics—especially women themselves—don’t understand a fundamental aspect of the male mind: that we do what works, not what “ought” to work, or what “should” work, because it comports to what we think the world should be.

      The simple truth of the matter is that CBT and the like simply doesn’t work, as McDermid himself has made clear:

      For those of you who don’t know, I did end up in The Priory Hospital in Roehampton where I met some awesome people (yes, some were famous). However I found that they were low on facts and relied heavily on emotional ‘one-liners’, not logic. It also seems to address the ‘symptoms’ of the issue, not the problem itself.

      I was repeatedly told to “trust the process”, but no-one was willing to outline this mystical process. To me it was one step removed from a cult with pseudo science used to ‘persuade’ rather than educate. For one session at The Priory I was told to stare at an orange for an hour… Make your own conclusions on how effective that technique was…

      Obviously, mainstream psychological counseling services are ill-equipped to contend with the male mating mind, how and why it works, and how to put a guy on the right track toward meeting his mating goals. As many of us know all too well, (straight) male sexual desire is at the very least looked on with a side eye, if not outright vilified and excoriated.

      In Summation
      Somehow people – in our time today, straight men – are supposed to treat their attraction triggers like a light switch that they can turn on or off, or perhaps more like a dimmer light dial, where it can be adjusted at whatever setting is desired.

      They are also forced to endure a “trust the process” party line from mainstream therapists who have no idea how to help them achieve their goals, as well as a manosphere counterculture that cannot give them the cure-all they are looking for to “solve” their race, height, or whatever other characteristic they view as their problem.

      Regretfully, McDermid won’t be the last victim of today’s harsh sexual marketplace.

  3. Craig
    May 12, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    @ P Ray; smartphones + hookup apps Tinder being the most popular.

    • P Ray
      May 12, 2018 at 6:41 pm

      Social media like Friendster and Myspace already allowed women to zoom in on the most attractive guys, they just didn’t have a portable realtime option like smartphones: notebooks were cumbersome and could be dropped resulting in a painful conversation with Billy Beta or George Geek, so women couldn’t readily use that.

      After smartphones and even before Tinder women were able to harvest prime cock, and didn’t waste the opportunity.

  4. May 14, 2018 at 2:24 am

    People are misusing the term incel.

    The term means involuntary celibate.

    I argue the term doesn’t exist for men, as almost all men can pay for sex.

    The term certainly doesn’t exist for women at all. Women who are sexless are choosing to be sexless. I have seen fat ugly women land tall handsome men with jobs, countless times. Men settle, women do not.

    • P Ray
      May 14, 2018 at 3:49 pm

      Almost all men have to pay for sex.
      But not almost all men can get sex.

      There would not be twitch or patreon getting women the bucks just for showing up and flashing a bit of skin otherwise.

      Women who are sexless have managed to get their condition classified as a disability.
      express.co.uk/news/uk/723323/Sexual-partner-fertility-disability-World-Health-Organisation-IVF – Failure to find a sexual partner is now a DISABILITY says World Health Organisation Mon, Oct 24, 2016

      Men have not.

      Again, there is a persistent fear in men that they cannot speak up against double standards from women and the minority of men who have real power but no ability.

      Reminds me of the joke:
      Australians are wrong in complaining about brothels near schools, because churches(that don’t get complaints when set up) are more likely to create sexually abused and traumatised kids.

    • P Ray
      May 14, 2018 at 3:52 pm

      Another proof about what I’m saying:

      Got rejected by a prostitute (self.ForeverAlone)
      submitted 3 years ago by Slimer6
      I haven’t been terribly active on this page, but I have posted and commented from time to time. I spend quite a bit of time on other forums similar to this, notably love-shy.
      Anyway, I finally decided to bite the bullet and end my virginity by any means possible. I went to backpage and arranged to hire a prostitute. It was cheaper to go to her than have her come to me so I drove to the address I was given.
      A black man, somewhat hostile, answered the door. Apparently he was her pimp. He insisted that I pay him up front, which I did. He barked for the girl that I’d ordered (there were apparently a number of prostitutes there) to come up to the front of the house and meet me. After an awkward conversation, she led me back to her room.
      I told her that I was a virgin. She said it was all right and that she’d take care of me. As sad as this sounds, I didn’t know how to get things started, so I asked her what I was supposed to do first.
      She told me to lay on the bed while she slipped into something more comfortable. She took her clothes off. Then she started to take my shorts off. When she touched me, I shuddered involuntarily. I have a lot of social anxiety and I wasn’t used to being touched. She flinched, but continued. She then went to remove my underwear. I was squirming. I couldn’t help it.
      When she got my boxers lowered to the point that she could see my penis, she started laughing and said “oh hell no. I can’t fuck with that little thing.” I think my pubic hair also put her off.
      She yelled for the black guy that opened the door to get me out of there, which he did. I didn’t get my money back.
      This was the most humiliating experience of my life. I hate myself.

      Oh ya, men can get sex whenever they pay for it. Ya right.

  5. Ted
    May 15, 2018 at 1:13 pm

    “Oh ya, men can get sex whenever they pay for it. Ya right.”

    Women tell incel men they should risk disease, being robbed, arrested by the police as a john for sex. Around my neck of the woods, a couple of years ago, a 60 something year old man, a teacher in a local school, called up a hooker from Backpage to come to his home. Something happened, and she stabbed him to death. Australia, Canada, and Germany at least have legal brothels. Cause of “Christians” and feminists, such is not the case in the U.S.

    It does seem more and more men are simply tuning out the demands of women and society. Just go to your dead-end job, go home, watch TV or play video games, jerk off, and go to sleep.

    • P Ray
      May 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm

      @Advocatus: more data points for you: Nonsense stats in italics
      [Blackpill] Debunking false findings and manipulation of data against incels
      Thread starter animucel Start date Today at 9:00 PM

      JoinedJan 25, 2018
      Today at 9:00 PM#1

      First let’s approach their main conclusion:
      The primary cause of the rise in sexlessness is simply the increasing delay of marriage.
      This is not true because it applies only to males. Note the significant increase post 2008 in mainly male celibacy, not female one. If marriages were a problem, why does problem affect males much more significantly, perhaps twice as strong if not more, depending on the source?

      Most people have premartial sex (depending on the country ofc). Marriage decline has more to do with culture rather than anything else. Many young people simply decide not to marry, despite making pairs. Or marrying much later. I however fail to see how being in marriage and sex correlate with each other, since seldom anyone but extremely religious people decide not to have it before marriage. I could go on and tell you how women have lower virgin age, have it easier by a sole fact that there’s simply more males than females in the reproductive age(pure mathematics), teach you about economics, but this apparently seems irrelevant to this “amazing study”.

      Historically, never-married men have reported higher sexual frequency than never-married women. However, in the 2014 and 2016 GSS samples, that changed: never-married men now report slightly lower sexual frequency than never-married women.
      You call the highest difference in over 25 years “little”? Relatively, women are having twice as much sex as men do.
      Relative change for males compared to females from 2008 to 2016 in sexlessness rising by stunning ~100%, which means there’s about twice the amount of men in the group not having sex compared to females. That’s roughly ~43% increase for men and ~22.5% increase for women. That’s just rough calculations from their chart. So about twice as many men than women, +/- 5%. You call this slightly? Weaselly at best, intentionally misleading at worst.

      this is mostly because men are reporting less sex, not that women are reporting more sex. Female sexual frequency is essentially unchanged since 2000. In other words, a key piece of the incel story about rising female promiscuity just isn’t there.
      Let’s think about this for a second. If the problem concerned both sexes, the relative change between sexes would be unchanged. Why is the difference between males and females the highest now? If that was true, and people of both genders started having less sex, wouldn’t the relative difference of sexlessness between males and females be similar to previous years? Not convincing enough perhaps. Maybe a logical truth-bomb? If women’s sex frequency in some group didn’t change, but male’s did, who’s doing all the fucking? A good theory would be that there’s a smaller group of males who gets more sex that those males would otherwise get. What other way is there to explain this, considering females are having the same amount of sex, but males get less, and you need both to tango. You said it yourself: Female sexual frequency is essentially unchanged since 2000. And if less males fuck, someone has to keep up with all the fucking. I apologize for language, but I cannot possibly explain this in simpler terms.
      So what piece did we miss, “ifstudies”?

      The incel account of events thus far is maybe true in the GSS, but faced strong rebuttals from the NHANES and NSFG data. Not a glowing endorsement of the incel narrative!
      Do you even read the data you show?
      JFL.png :
      GSS data contains: People who never married, and “average” of people who had zero sexual partners and no sexual encounters.
      NSFG data contains: People who never married (JFL)
      NHANES data contains: People who never married and who never married and live with a partner (JFLx2)
      In 2018, where seldom anyone below 30 marries, what do you expect to see here? That people living with a partner that they are not married to are having sex? Well, data supports that one for sure. Not sure if we needed studies for this one, though.

      Many incels quote a rule of thumb that 20% of men have 80% of the sex. Is this true?
      It’s a rule of thumb. It will never be perfectly 20% and 80%.

      In reality, according to the GSS, the top 20% of the most sexually active never-married young men have about 50-60% of the sex. It’s about the same for women, and these shares are basically stable over time. Measuring the number of partners instead of sexual frequency, the top 20% most promiscuous men account for about 60% of male sexual partnerings, and the trend is, again, quite stable over time.
      Damn, for a rule of thumb, that’s pretty damn accurate. Small group of top males are having a go with majority of the females. Damn. And if it’s truly stable, that means concerning to my previous findings that the standards are rising pretty damn hard. Since that top 20% of males will be in a lesser group. I think for now, 20/60 rule is fine by me. Still means that 80% of males fight for 40% of females. That’s twice as much. Even if we pair everyone 1-to-1, what happens to the 40% of men for who there’s no one? Weak argument considering they say “sex” and not “partners”, and I don’t know how to define it. Very misleading. Data missing on women as well. No real source given outside of “GSS” which has like billion different things.

      The core incel story about what’s going on here—that a few Chads are hoarding a growing share of Stacies, depriving incels of mates—just doesn’t hold up. The top 20% of unmarried men are having about the same share of total sexual activity or sexual partnerings as has been the case for decades.
      Your findings are not supported by any data. GSS Does not have ‘Top sexual males” rankings. If you do not publish data, releasing statements might as well be treated as fantasy. I imagine they’re, as has been shown, again misinterpreting existing data. I don’t even know what GSS data they used to interpret this so I cannot verify it myself. Also it wouldn’t make sense if it’s true unless it’s relative findings, since, as shown before, someone has to keep up with the additional “sex” even though less males have it.

      The main factor driving this trend, however, isn’t Chads and Stacies, but just declining marriage rates among young men.
      What the fuck? I mean marriage is when a woman and a man get together. Why is that problem only concerning males, then? Hello? You just said that female sexlessness is virtually unchanged, so, who are those women having sex with? Why do they not have a problem with marriage? Who are they marrying, if they are? Something is going on here. But marriages are on the decline in general! Why are you blaming young men for this?
      Unmarried people have less sex in general
      Then… if marriage is on the decline.. why is female’s celibacy rate not rising? I mean, if young men don’t marry, young women would not either. Most marriages are within the same age range, more or less. So I don’t get what you’re trying to say. It takes two to tango, you know? Both in sex and marriage. Or are they saying no marriage only leaves men sexless?

      Thus, while the NSFG shows sexlessness declining, essentially involuntary sources of sexlessness, which I consider to be “other” and “lack of a suitable partner,” are stable or rising.
      But the 68% increase from 2002 to 2015 in the incel share of the male, never-married, 22-35-year-old population is mostly due to a decline in marriage, not never-married men having less sex.

      Why does it only concerns males if that’s true? Wouldn’t women’s relative difference in sexlessness in never married females be the fucking same? But it clearly isn’t according to data? Maybe they are saying women are having tremendously more sex outside of marriage compared to men and that it’s terribly hard for males to have sex outside of marriage. Well that would make sense. Isn’t that what we were saying for quite a while here on incels.me? It simply means some men cannot have sex without the institution of marriage, then. To some degree, at least.

      But the big change isn’t a growing share of alpha males hoarding all the sex, nor women suddenly becoming far more choosey amid rising promiscuity; rather, it’s just that marriage is being delayed,
      Again, then why does it not affect women relatively speaking?
      You need two to marry. A woman and a man. Well, same-sex marriages exist too I guess. But I don’t think that’s relevant here.

      I will skip the education and housing problem, it’s obvious to everyone.
      But whatever the direct effect of education on never-married men, the primary cause of the rise in sexlessness is simply the increasing delay of marriage. The delay in marriage has numerous causes, of course, but probably the most powerful driver of marital timing also relates to education. Men and women are much less likely to get married while attending school, and across times and countries, an increase in the years of schooling is associated with later age of marriage, though more-educated people do tend to get married eventually. Thus, as more and more schooling becomes necessary for a good middle-class job, marriage gets pushed later and later, leaving more young people (men and women!) companionless and lonely.
      This whole argument is based on wrong data interpretation. Men are twice more sexless relatively speaking. Look at the data. If it was a marriage problem, we would see such a steep increase not only for men, but for women as well. And yet, relative difference between sexless men and women is the highest in recorded history. Explain this.

    • P Ray
      May 15, 2018 at 7:55 pm

      Ideally men should also learn self-defense, because when they’re older and more likely to be alone – since many weren’t wanted when younger – they’ll definitely be preyed on by both young and old men and women – the feral offspring of the cock-carousel riders … or even get falsely accused of inappropriate touching.

      As someone else has said “Our enemy is the fucked-up society”.

  1. May 15, 2018 at 8:57 am
  2. May 23, 2018 at 4:03 pm

Leave a Reply to tamerlame Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: