disk_interested
incel philosopher king
User ID: 4005
Depends, did she have a hoe phase and is now settling down? Is she currently in her hoe phase? (ghosted, r.i.p.) Is she a loyal serial dater with less than 5-10 body count? Is she inexperienced/a virgin? Is she a divorced mom of 3?
Women control the pace and progress of dating, so turn down her advances at your own risk.
edit: I personally try to calibrate my behavior based on the girl I'm dating, and based on my prior experience while simultaneously being the active partner in the dance of seduction. It takes supreme mind reading skills, but my experience so far has been easily replicated. And it converges with the body language/human sexuality research (Love Signals - David Givens is a well-sourced intro to this field), and the individual methods that "pickup artists" shill on youtube. Seems seduction is both a science and an art
disk_interested
22d ago
You've convinced me that I need to reread 1984 as an adult incel
I know of no girls who, even if they came on to a guy in those circumstances, would object to his saying "Hey, could we wait a little? I really like you and I want to spend more time getting to know you before we get physical."
For me, it's the opposite. The dating market in (most?) western metro areas is extremely fast paced. Many of my friends have opted out of this market, but what's the alternative? Political/strategic marriage? Never marrying?
I don't see any way around it: if you want to select your spouse, you need to play the dating game.
I haven't heard a Zoomer say they didn't want to date because rape accusations, just that dating feels awkward, is a PITA and they worry the girl would be judging them.
The "awkwardness" comes from the heavy cloud of social and legal consequences men face for making just one wrong move on a date. The longhouse taught us that we need explicit verbal consent at every step of foreplay.
Men overwhelmingly make the first sexual move (and then make 3-5 moves for every 1 his female partner makes). This roughly 4:1 sexual dance is preferred by the overwhelming majority of men and women. Add to this the lingering social stigma for women to be viewed as sluts for making the first move or evening out the 4:1 ratio, and many possible romances fizzle out on the first date. Modern dating markets are so flooded with men on the supply side of the equation, that women rarely invest their time in a second date for "no chemistry" suitors.
Men have a perfectly rational fear here: the bar for what counts as felony sex assault has been lowered to "he made me uncomfortable when escalating (but I didn't say no)" from "he overpowered me after I said no." The legacy definition is extremely clear, but this new grey zone of flirting/foreplay is unmapped by normies. Pickup artists have been studying this for decades, but there's no universally agreed upon set of rules. On the other hand, insing women ignorant of the territory have come up with a reasonably self-consistent set of rules around dating (chad is exempt). Insings have also taken over the disciplinary boards in universities and some district attorneys offices' with these new rules.
The existential threats to young men who actually absorbed some of the "don't rape" lessons in grade school include:
- Getting arrested
- Losing essentially all your friends post-allegation
- $30,000-60,000 on a defense lawyer for trial
- 3-5 years in prison
- Possibility of getting murdered in prison
- Permanently losing your career and social life as a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER
All of these life-altering consequences may be applied over something relatively inconsequential as fingerbanging a drunk girl who verbally asks her date to "fuck me" over the course of about 5 minutes
I may update this post with more examples, but the first link took a massive federal lawsuit to reverse Ben Feibleman's expulsion from Columbia. I doubt his legal win has done much to repair his social life.
I'm not advocating for a retvrn to the 50s-70s dating rules (which were much clearer), but something must change on a cultural and legal level here. This is a primary variable in demographic collapse, although relatively unstudied. Men and women simply can't agree on the rules of flirting. Women have a near total legal control over sex, whereas men have near total physical control. A non-trivial number of men and women will refuse to compromise on this issue, at the cost of marriages and future children.
disk_interested
1mo ago
Palestine is a near-perfect example where Jihad Muslims who believe in martyrdom and paradise hopelessly fight a losing battle against the IDF, while almost all moderate Muslims flee the combat zones when told by the IDF that Gaza City, or Rafah, etc. will be invaded.
These non-combatant Palestinians (i.e. Jihad doubters) were the same ones who hate Israel enough to parade the corpses from the Nova massacre, and celebrate the taking of Israeli civilian hostages. They are brutal uneducated people, but only a small subset are suicidal would-be martyrs. Sam Harris has been saying this for years.
That’s not my claim. My claim is that men have reason to lie upwards about body count, and women have reason to lie downwards about it. This is a well known effect in human sexuality research.
Alexander & Fisher (2003) https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/239672/original/Alexander%252B%252526%252BFisher%252B%2525282003%252529.pdf
I think my disclaimer is important when drawing conclusions from self-reported data about sexual behavior. I’m not committed to the “carousel” theory, as you argue against above, rather I’m surprised you would use that data without caveat.
disk_interested
1mo ago
You forgot the disclaimer: both men and women have motivation to lie about self-reported body count data
Actually, that is a claim made by “Red Pill” men and has been falsified.
True, but this is not the strongest version of the overall redpill argument about women's evolved instincts.
I don't think there's any smoking gun data about the sexual habits of 20-30 y/o women in western societies. So instead we have weak data (personal experience, anecdotes, blog posts from e-harmony, non-academic tinder experiments, etc.) giving rise to a variety of interpretations. The current political landscape for studying human sexuality is unfortunately much worse than it was in the 80s and 90s. What was already too radioactive to study back then, is worse off due to the LGBTQ academic lobby and red-tribe populism.
And if strong evidence for "humans sexual instincts are basically the same as chimps" did emerge from this field, it would be added to the pile of blue Cathedral scientific claims (however true these may be) which a significant portion of the red-tribe dogmatically rejects. Hence, "politically radioactive."
The modern version of Buss et. al.'s argument doesn't rely on cheating that results in a child. Reliable birth control (condoms), and even unreliable birth control (ovulation timing) will lower the rate of genetic cuckoldry. And this tracks with common sense from the unfaithful wife's POV. She doesn't want to get pregnant from her lover, even if that's where the evolved instinct to cheat originally comes from. And, this whole "alpha fux beta bux" argument only makes sense in zero-sum monogamy. It seems that all chimps in a troop both "fux" and "bux."
edit: removed a paragraph
Current data can't refute "alpha fux, beta bux", because it emerges from the work of David Buss, and from Primatology as a whole. Once everyone agrees about how unregulated sexual marketplaces work, then we can have a serious discussion about what social policies could improve the situation.
I think the global sexual marketplace has way too much competition, which can be seen on dating apps, and in big cities. There is a massive difference in the level of romantic value men can offer in big cities. At the top, we have deca-millioniares and billionaires, extremely athletic men and male models, compared to men who are just average/above average. Considering that almost all urban young women are sexually liberated, and have access to the top men via dating apps, it's genuinely hard to imagine how these young women can go back to dating normal guys after this superstimulus. It's like going back to caffeine after doing meth.
I'm not sure if a restrictive solution would work. Can't turn a 'ho into a housewife, as the saying goes.
disk_interested
1mo ago
Sexual liberation cannot be half-stepped. Everybody gets to fuck, all together or paired up.
disk_interested
1mo ago
I have yet to meet a progressive liberal in the PNW who has a coherent position here.
disk_interested
1mo ago
Lots of young people today are "this is perfectly healthy."
It's a cope. It's a way for us to ignore the severely blackpilling issues. Some non-trivial percentage of young men and women will realistically 1) never own a house, 2) never have a stable long-term relationship, 3) never have a social circle more than 2-3 people they can trust. So, why not get high (or drink) most days?
These personal problems are, of course, connected to the large-scale social problems that will cause despair in even the most radical optimists. I'm an optimist, but the dating situation is pretty severe for young men and women. It's hard for anyone 30+ with a stable relationship (or a stable past relationship) to understand.
disk_interested
1mo ago
I agree. That is essentially what the argument boils down to.
I prefer the ratio framing, because it frees us from the anchoring bias, which is especially confusing given recent inflation. To have a serious discussion on this issue, we all need to keep the relevant variables in our minds, and given that the complexity of the entire economy is in play here, most people are unable to think seriously about this issue, let alone have a discussion about policy.
My progressive liberal friends steelman it as wage to housing ratio is such that everyone outside of the lower class can eventually own
In practice, I’ve heard this described as pretty much everyone outside of poverty can budget for 3-10 years to afford a down payment and total monthly payment for a duplex, condo, detached house, etc. Currently, the issues are: the number of people near the poverty line has increased massively, and wage growth outside the upper middle class seems stagnant. I’m not an economist, so I’m not familiar the recent stats here, but I agree with my friends on affordable housing being about ratios in essence. Regardless, bad policy can easily hide in the term “affordable housing”.
disk_interested
1mo ago
This is a prime example of the mental gymnastics one has to preform as a rational person with fundamentalist beliefs. For whatever reason(s), Vaughn has decided that core axioms of Christianity are true (powerful invisible beings who intervene in human affairs, valid prophecies waiting to be fulfilled, etc.), and his theory about the metaphysical implications are basically rational if you consider that he’s not going to question these priors.
All that assumes he has sincere belief. There is some MRI evidence that most people are quite uncertain about metaphysical claims.
True, I haven't turned down a woman's sexual advances so far.
They have a leads problem. They can't get dates. My bachelor friends average one date every 3-6 months. These are normie guys in their late 20s; none are ugly.
This is an exaggeration. My friends, and young men in general, are not giving up completely. They are just adjusting their strategy to a much more passive approach to dating. Almost like what you're describing. They (against my advice) let the woman their dating make all the first moves, which sometimes results in no moves at all.
These guys are all jerking off to porn, and have been for years. They don't approach attractive women in real life, and they're not trying to eek out an optimized hinge profile to get in the top elo rankings. I wouldn't say they've given up, but they're barely trying to play a heavily rigged game.
More options
Context Copy link