I remember seeing a video of this blonde haired dude who was rather good looking (autists.org will prob call him a HTN) who was malding and getting pissed over the fact that even after "ascending" he is still at a stump in dating and his friends who look much worse than he is (prob the case he never showed photos) were dating just fine. This is what an already above average incel will face if he doesn't get anything else in his life in check. If your below this level, you won't even make it.
It's because a lot of young men now view relationships as A->B->C, like meet-and-fuck flash games, you click the right speech bubble, and suddenly she's naked, and you get to sexxysexxy bang. Sometimes how a person perceives you is completely out of your control. That's just how it is. Maybe their coffee machine broke this morning or their shoes are uncomfortable, and when you go up and say hi, their less-than-desirable reaction to you isn't your fault. There just aren't magic words you can say to make things happen. The guy seems to have fallen for the looksmaxxing meme, and he expected that once he got his jawline squared away he'd get foids swarming him. Most incel/blackpill "laws" or "rules" are just specific copes that a person has extrapolated and applied to an entire population. Once you see this subjectivity, you won't be able to unsee it.
For all the talk of "human nature" in incel spaces, they fail or consciously ignore the
fact that there isn't a way to gamify relationships; human nature just doesn't work that way. Sure, you can increase your odds of a positive social outcome by doing simple things like improving your appearance or strengthening interpersonal skills, but there aren't dialogue options like in a video game. You should be taking care of your appearance, you shouldn't be motivated by sex to do so as most people can sense inauthenticity in others.
You're right with there only being two 'levels' in dating: unfuckable because of your own decisions and fuckable because you've put
genuine work in on yourself to make you a desirable
human in and outside of dating. You
can escape from the unfuckable level because I did, and that's why I rail against the incel mentality. It stole away so many years of happiness and enjoyment in life from me, and I hate seeing it happen to other men. It really just is a case of hard work plus being in the right place and right time, but that won't happen if someone gives up and sits inside all day.
@ACertainImmortal definitely very good points, even if you're not autistic or incel, your merits as a man in any relationship are heavily nerfed compared to past years. With women making their own money, maybe more than most men do at times, it's not something you can use, and yet, many of these women want to date a man who makes more money than they do, and has the physical traits and other factors that incel were complaining about in the first place.
Nerfed as in no longer being able to expect to get handed a foid just for having a cock? Your merits as a man have just changed, not nerfed. Most women I know are looking for companionship and excitement, not status flashy bullshit or being abovesixfeetsharpjawlinebigdickmuscularjustbe(insert racehere)huntereyes, etc. Money is important as it shows you can support yourself, but using it as a status symbol is going to attract the wrong type of person. Vapid, self-absorbed whores exist, and they've always existed. Why lose sleep over not being able to 'get' them? Fuck em. They're a minority that gets focused on by incels and blackpill influences to sell you an ideology; most women aren't like that.
Showering, shaving/haircut, wearing deodorant, and being able to hold a conversation will automatically bump you up above most men inside and out of dating. That's not even a hard fact because I know people that don't do that who are in happy, long-term marriages. Incels (volcels) call it cope online because they're addicted to self loathing and don't even want to try.
Incels being ignorant of how relationships work. Yes! Obviously, people who don't have direct experience with things might not actually know how they work. But from their POV this is putting the cart before the horse. They're hyper-fixated with initiating the relationship (and not maintaining them) because initiating the relationship is the first barrier. To be concerned about the difficulty of keeping a girlfriend who has yet to materialise would be like a law student who is concerned about partnership prospects when he has yet to receive a return offer and pass the bar exam.
A lot of incels have or frequently develop oneitis. Breaking that is the only way to get the skills needed to find and catch your actual "one."
Using your example, the law student who wants to be District Attorney or firm Partner the second he gets out of school is in for a rude awakening. He's going to have to work his way up refining his skills and getting experience. Sure, there might be cases where that does happen, but for 99% of people that's just not going to happen. Dating is the same way. You have to date around to understand what you like/dislike about humans in order to understand what it is you need in a relationship. That's just the tough truth for people who use "purity" as a cope, sorry.
Hint: Most people who say they're waiting or waited for marriage are lying to save face. It's not common nor has it ever been this way, even in the BASED 1950s/60s.
I have to go over this part of the post because of how misleading, retarded and full of circular logic it is. Sorry for this being so long, fuck my wordcel life.
Our current era also has unnatural constraints: Government-funded degrees and civil rights law artificially prop up the earnings of young women vis-a-vis young men. Without writing an entire essay I'll make two points: 1) Women are now overrepresented in higher education, but are far more likely to not pay back their student loans. The same degrees that allow women to look down on men are hence the result of a taxpayer benefit that disproportionately benefits women. If we actually allowed the free market to decide who would get a university education the landscape would be very different. 2) Even when women had equal educational and career opportunities (most Western societies reached this point in the late 1970s/early 80s), men were still overrepresented in high-income career paths. The logical explanation is that men self-selected into these career paths because a man's ability to start a family was tied to having an income; a woman's ability was not. But the powers that be decided that disparate outcomes was necessarily evidence of discrimination, and responded with actual discrimination in the other direction, causing the feminization of entire segments of the economy.
If "feminisation" of society resulted in higher wages for women then why is work done by women seen as less valuable than men socially and financially? There is nothing
physically stopping men from becoming teachers or healthcare workers. I have, however, seen how society treats men in these career paths, and it's led me to believe there's truth to the idea of toxic masculinity. Men do a thing initially, some women begin to do it too, and then it becomes "uncool" or emasculating for a man to be doing those things. You can see this pattern emerge multiple times throughout history. In America if you ask an average person to think of a psychologist, do they imagine a woman with thick-framed glasses or think of Sigmund Freud or Carl Jung? Men were the first nurses before it was briefly turned into a womans only profession in the 1800s before being opened back up to men. I can go on and on. Once women start entering a field, wages decrease; this is well documented. You can complain about "female institutional capture" all you want, but by doing so you automatically are disqualified from being able to call a man faggot for wanting to be a teacher, HR rep, nurse, etc.
Saying "natural market forces" kept women out of institutions when back then women were legally barred from entering said institutions is retarded. The institutions they were able to enter had higher standards for entry than men. Yes, in the 70s when women finally got equal rights to enter society under the law
of course they were underrepresented in high-income careers, because men had been doing it far longer. You're ignoring how career trajectories and institutions work. Even if we said that in the 70s/80s if women given full equality under the law, do you think the exclusionary nature of these groups would instantly evaporate as well? The reason a lot of men were in positions like this was because of the postwar GI bill subsidizing education, low interest homes, etc. Mind you, this is the largest government education investment in U.S. history, and the overwhelmingly majority of its recipients were men. You can't just gloss over this.
What do you mean not likely to pay back student loans? You
have to pay them back, not even bankruptcy can save you. Women repay student loans slower than men, yes. They still have to pay them back, and end up paying more interest on them as a result of holding the debt longer than men. Regardless of belief the gender pay gap women do statistically make less money than men in the same fields after college. Things like FAFSA apply to both genders equally and you can see it on government websites. More women get more FAFSA money because more women attend college and take out loans. You can't really use this as an example of discrimination against men because they are postively correlated. This is a volume problem, less men go to college than women because of pathways like trades or military, overrepresentation only happens because there are things siphoning men out of the college pipeline. (I don't want this discussion to turn to the current situation of college being diploma mill daycares for people either, so I'll just mention that now.)
Men are still pressured to be the breadwinner of the family. You can't argue that natural market forces encourage men to fill that role, when it's societal pressures that are encouraging men into high-income professions. This point makes no sense.
Am I disagreeing that there is discrimination in the workplace? No. Both genders gatekeep the opposite today and it is a serious problem. Stigma against men exists right now and is the cause behind a lot of discrimination, but it's not coming from giving more women rights.
