my god how could we not have noticed. This man is very intelligent! We’ll never defeat him in the coliseum of debate, his mighty brain is far too powerful!
Remind me, which one is the one bombing the other by pressing a button while sitting in an off 2000 miles away. You can have your sandbox and your bronze age beliefs, I'll stick with the people who won't kill you for believing in the wrong fairytale.
yeah but subs like this one or the other meta subs like srd or circlebroke2 are especially bad. they'll ban you for disagreeing and for saying the most harmless things.
Meta subs are fun, call-out subs are shit. At least cb2 and here are laughing, IncelTears, niceguys, iamverysmart, etc think they're crusaders for morality or some shit
There are only two types of retards moderators: the ones who take it seriously (very retarded), the ones that take it with a grain of salt (slightly retarded) and the ones that don't even know they're mods (not retarded).
at the risk of sounding like a spoiled teenager it also feels like the older members don't get it it was different in their day
Yeah, back in the good old days chicks were just throwing the pussy around to any old bro. A dude couldn’t even go to 7-11 for a nice refreshing Slurpee without getting head at least twice.
tbf, the nature of hookup/dating apps + hookup culture has made it harder for young men to get laid, plus the younger generations are at a higher risk of developing poor social skills due to spending all of their time on screens and potentially joining groups that make them more repulsive to the opposite sex (e.g. incels, TRP, tumblr). That said, it's still easier for men to get laid and settle down than it has been in human history bar the 20th century. Not that it's much of a consolation to the men who aren't getting laid, but things could be much worse.
They could, but honestly, in the age of tinder, before I was in a solid relationship, I found it way harder to meet women than back when I was in college like 12 years ago. Dating may have improved from a hundred years ago for just sex, but I general is a shit show as more and more people can't even socialize without a screen, like you mentioned.
Dating may have improved from a hundred years ago for just sex, but I general is a shit show as more and more people can't even socialize without a screen, like you mentioned.
Back in the day, men had to have some sort of value or status in order to get married, which could take years for them to obtain if it happened at all. In various cultures throughout history, one of the ways to be seen as fit for marriage if you weren't born wealthy is to become cannon fodder serving some powerful asshole's personal project. That's not even taking into account the many various cultures that practiced polygamy or had some sort of feudal system where the man in charge could bang whoever was working their land whether that woman was married or not.
The 80's-late 00's was probably the golden age for men in terms of dating and marriage, at least in the West. Sleeping around/casual dating wasn't particularly stigmatized but hookup culture wasn't the norm for most of that time period, nobody could tell you who to marry and for what reason unless you were in some weird religious sect, and you weren't pressured to marry right out of high school/college unless you were in some weird religious sect. When the internet was around in that time period, relationships were primarily formed on it based on shared interests, and it was a good way for otherwise undesirable people to find a partner because undesirable people were the only ones finding love online, for the most part. Only a very small proportion of adults had been ruined by screens at that point, so social interaction was largely healthy.
Dating culture is comparatively horrible now, but it's a big leg up from what it was in antiquity. At least for the time being. Gen Z is probably fucked lamao
If you were middle-class or above and didn't have any problems like mental health issues or learning disabilities, sure. Shut-ins with social problems didn't have any better of a chance back then than they do now. And even if you did get married there's a very high chance that you would be stuck with somebody you weren't compatible with with little to no chance to escape given the massive stigma around divorce and the fact that most marriages were transactional. It's not even that difficult to get married now, there are plenty women who do want to get married at some point in their 20's or early 30's. Probably the vast majority, in fact. However, a growing percentage of both men and women want to fuck around into their 30's. I don't see many men who are desperate to settle down young aside from the devout religious ones and /pol/ types who won't settle for anything less than a blonde-haired blue-eyed 19-year-old virgin kissless tradcon who wants to devote her life to popping out kids and maintaining a cooking blog.
It's not even that difficult to get married now, there are plenty women who do want to get married at some point in their 20's or early 30's. Probably the vast majority, in fact.
Shut-ins with social problems didn't have any better of a chance back then than they do now.
What was the chance they survived to the age of majority back then?
And even if you did get married there's a very high chance that you would be stuck with somebody you weren't compatible with with little to no chance to escape given the massive stigma around divorce and the fact that most marriages were transactional.
Marriage is any better now? The difference now for many is the finance damage of a divorce at a minimum rather than the social stigma...though the legal hurdles were probably a bigger issue, as women, then as now, were the primary initiators of divorce and back in the day you were generally screwed as a women in divorce court.
I don't see many men who are desperate to settle down young aside from the devout religious ones and /pol/ types who won't settle for anything less than a blonde-haired blue-eyed 19-year-old virgin kissless tradcon who wants to devote her life to popping out kids and maintaining a cooking blog.
I doubt the average guy would admit it if he was. But back in the day to have sex generally meant having to get married for reasons of social pressure...so it was really easy to get married for a guy if ge had enough attract a girl, who generally needed to be married to have any sort of quality of life given the jobs and pay available to women in the 1800s.
The only standards that article mentions are gainful employment and a college degree. Of course women who are career-oriented will value those things in a partner. Men and women have always been overwhelmingly likely to settle down with a partner who is similar to them in terms of SES, values, level of attractiveness, etc. This doesn't mean that women have 'higher standards than ever', which that article doesn't even imply...it's not even about women at large, just career-oriented women. Hell, that article even implies that they're desperate to settle down and aren't looking for anything spectacular.
What was the chance they survived to the age of majority back then?
What would make them less likely than anyone else to survive to the age of majority? They're still part of a wider community that they could somehow contribute to. Many men of that nature adopted monastic life back in the day, and more recently they took jobs that didn't involve a lot of social contact. It's not like somebody who isn't good with people just withered and died until the internet came around.
Marriage is any better now?
Depends on your class.
The difference now for many is the finance damage of a divorce
Divorce has less of a financial impact on men now than it has in modern history. In most cases an algorithm is used for financial dealings, and alimony is only awarded to partners who've spent many years as a homemaker/SAHP (i.e. sacrificed a chance at a career in order to support the household).
as women, then as now, were the primary initiators of divorce and back in the day you were generally screwed as a women in divorce court.
So? That's a meaningless statistic unless the reasons for the divorce are known. It could mean that more men cheat and/or are abusive, thus causing their partners to initiate divorce. It could mean that women are more likely to get bored and leave, or that they're more likely to divorce if they're bored while men are more likely to cheat. It could mean any number of things. And what does this have to do with the idea that it's more difficult for a man to get married now? The fact that divorce is no longer as stigmatized means that both men and women can leave relationships that are unhealthy.
who generally needed to be married to have any sort of quality of life given the jobs and pay available to women in the 1800s.
That's not true. Family structures were different back then, and unmarried women could live indefinitely with their family doing various work that needed to be done (unless you're talking about poor urban families during the industrial revolution, though in cases like those the life of a woman would generally be shit whether or not she was married). There was the expectation that a woman would be married at a certain age, but in most cases suitors would have to have amassed some amount of resources to be considered. Which usually would take some years if it ever happened.
Easier for Chad, harder for everyone else because of hypergamy. Women would rather be Chads sidepiece than settle for an average guy, and with online dating they can make that happen.
for women, not men. at one point in time you could charm women far above your league into banging you, since men charming and seducing women was the only way both genders got laid, women were at the mercy of having to accept whatever men had the balls to actually approach them.
now, women can only go for chad, and refuse to fuck anything but only the best looking men, since they can sit at home swiping dating apps and match with 400 men a day, and choose the best ones, all while sitting at home in their PJs.
Harder for unattractive men, because dating apps allow women to filter out everyone who isnt 6'0+, fit with an aesthetic face, and they hold all the cards in terms of supply/demand.
there are actually some good studies on that sub. probably is, they only circle jerk studies that confirm their world belief. i've seen tons of studies that say confidence or other positive personality traits can increase how attractive women find men, but they ignore those ones and just post the ones about women's ideal body type and height, etc.
In any case I didn’t marry a white feminist cunt, I just fucked a heap of them and then bounced. Living the dream in traditional ol’ east Asia with a Taiwanese wife who dotes :). No feminist meat-holes here to ruin the party
A lot of these "settle down" relationships are transactional as fuck and people often try to delude themselves they aren't. Beneath the inocherent incel rage there seems to be some awareness that "maturity" for men and women is being more involved in the very system which cares about them less as people.
That said, pretty much every long-term relationship there is some form of 'settling down' and accepting your partner's flaws and shortcomings. It's just a matter of deciding if they're small enough that they won't fill your life with misery and woe. The cultural idea that a relationship should be based all on feelings or that you need to find your soulmate4lyf/Prince Charming has destroyed a lot of perfectly viable relationships. Plus transactional relationships aren't necessarily a bad thing either. They've been the norm in most cultures for most of human history. They can get real shitty, especially if people are forced together by circumstances beyond their control or barely within their control, but if two people are getting older and want to settle down with someone and get along well, have similar values, etc. then they can definitely have a healthy and meaningful relationship even if there's no 'spark' there.
Sure, nobody's perfect and we have to accept flaws in our partners. And a super passionate phase isn't necessary for a healthy relationship in the long term. Nothing to disagree with there.
Thing is, when you talk about transactional relationships being the norm in most cultures you're leaving out the important fact that those cultures hid the transactional natures of said partnerships using religious and cultural beliefs, beliefs that fed into the
The cultural idea that a relationship should be based all on feelings or that you need to find your soulmate4lyf/Prince Charming has destroyed a lot of perfectly viable relationships.
that you criticized here. Those beliefs have been exposed as BS so what's left in these types of relationships is just raw exchange in place of a higher belief system or passion.
There's still nothing wrong if both parties recognize this and move on pragmatically. It's just that more and more people will be turned off at looking at relationships in this way.
Thing is, when you talk about transactional relationships being the norm in most cultures you're leaving out the important fact that those cultures hid the transactional natures of said partnerships using religious and cultural beliefs
How so?
The "soulmate" meme kind of started with these cultures that promised love if you followed a set of rules. Those beliefs have been exposed as BS so what's left in these types of relationships is mostly raw exchange in place of a higher belief system or passion.
Could you expand on what those rules/beliefs are? I can't really say anything about them otherwise. If you're talking about things like traditional Christian partnerships, I imagine the 'love' they promise isn't the honeymoon period type of passion that a lot of people think is the hallmark of a good relationship. In those types of relationships, the type of 'love' that they're talking about is the one that grows over time based on shared experiences, cooperation, goals, etc. if the couple is compatible to begin with. The passion may or may not be there, but that type of love has its own merits and is probably more beneficial for a long-term relationship than just passionate love, which is what seems to be emphasized today.
Here's a framework of love created by some researcher; the love that was supposed to grow in transactional relationships of yore is different than the one we value/pursue today.
Yes I was talking about the style of traditional Christian/Muslim/whatever partnerships that even secular people try to base their LTRs off of to some extent. If you don't actually believe in those specific religions or cultural values wholeheartedly trying to recreate the old style of relationships is dumb. The point I'm making is that the sacrifices that people from older cultures made were made easier to swallow by tacking on extra stuff like rewards in heaven/merit for being a good partner and family person. If there's no passion and you remove the extra religious/cultural stuff you get a very transactional situation where the point is to pump out offspring and preserve wealth in the family.
That said, pretty much every long-term relationship there is some form of 'settling down' and accepting your partner's flaws and shortcomings
While true, there's a major difference between learning to deal with the fact your partner is say irrational when dealing with customer support on the phone and learning your partner isn't attracted to you leading to a r/deadbedrooms situation. I think the latter is one of many men's greatest fears about marriage.
i'd rather be alone than settle, or have someone settle for me. they settled for me despite not being attracted to me? dead bedroom in a few years, that isn't fun. they settled for me despite not liking various aspects of my personality? resentment and bitterness over the years leading to eventual divorce, that isn't fun.
people should be PICKIER if anything. either you are super attracted to your partner and the idea of fucking them everyday for the rest of life sounds AMAZING, or you just stay alone. either you love their personality/opinions/lifestyle/quirks so much that you could actually imagine spending every fucking day with them forever, or you stay alone.
more people need to be fine with just staying alone rather than "settling" for shit they don't really want, which leads to a shitty mediocre relationship that you just don't care enough about to put effort into anyway.
Maybe because of an obstacle come across mid long-term relationship (buying a house, having a kid) but I can’t honestly see women and men settling for each other upfront on that macro level. And as far as sticking together because of those obstacles, I don’t think interpreting that as maturity is deceptive.
But I would say most relationships that become “settle down” ones start with that romantic aspiration.
I think the x-factor here is that women do some fun/crazy things, men do some fun/crazy things, then you settle down and start a family.
when you're a social orangutan, and no one will let you put your cheeto-dusted fingers on them in an scenario, you never get a chance to sew any wild oats. so you bitterly resent people who do
This is exactly right, but with one addendum. I had a buddy from grad school who was just awful with the ladies. After graduating he became a quant. He ended up hanging out with the finance bros and basically got his shit together (he's still fucking weird, but at least he hides it better). You would not believe the amount of shit he gets from former party girls looking to settle down while he's sewing his wild oats in his 30s.
yeah I mean there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, either. Good for him for having the confidence to fuck n' run, and not just wife up the first pretty girl who gave him some sex.
your SO is not drastically different than the girls you met at college parties; you are not drastically different than the guys she met a college parties.
There are specific cases where this isn't true, and lots of them happen with regards to when someone uses money/status to get a partner they normally wouldn't have gotten.
From what I've seen throughout the incelsphere(ugh, I know) is that they're salty about not being considered when they didn't have money. I think on some level they realize that indeed money doesn't actually improve a person.
Being liked mainly cause you're pretty or because you have money is crushing for the men and women out there since it reduces them to these shallow attributes. The increase of people being operating like this makes for an overall more.bitter populace. The perspective becomes e man is just a sex hound and every woman is just a gold digger and both groups are looking to use the other.
Well I don't actually view things like this myself, it's just that I can understand how people who've been burned can feel this way. Again, this applies to a segment of the population that tries to turn relationships primarily into a transaction.
It just feels like that cynicism is born out of poor self-reflection. Personality can compensate for a lot, and it is nice to know you’re getting laid or finding relationships because partners just enjoy your company.
I had problems getting date #2’s until I started seeing a therapist and working on my own views toward relationships, whether romantic, platonic or sexual.
I wouldn't have even said that kid was fuck ugly compared to most people I see. I'm sorry but if you're halfway decent looking and drive a Beamer and still can't get pussy, there's something wrong with your shitty personality. Period.
when you're a social orangutan, and no woman will let you put your cheeto-dusted fingers on them in ANY scenario, you never get a chance to sew any wild oats. so you bitterly resent people who do
That's not just incels. There are a lot of angry nerds out there who have money now because that engineering degree finally paid off and they just complain about how they can't find their equivalent partner.
Which I mean, I kinda get? It's the old analogy of relationships being like tennis. You don't want to play with someone who is either way better/worse than you because tennis (and relationships) is more fun between equals.
they're obviously bitter because they never could make such experiences and they also assume that most other people do. Then the only way they could possibly get a girl out of their league is later in life through money and prestige, assuming they manage to achieve those, but if they're not stupid they're aware that she wouldn't have cared for them 10 years ago and is only doing so for stability reasons and to settle down which they (understandably) find frustrating (but also kinda their fault if they have to get with someone way out of their league).
btw, I feel like the whole narrative that most guys / girls constantly party and sleep around a ton during college isn't necessarily true. Obviously anecdotal but most of my peers during my Bachelor were in relationships, mostly long-term ones too. Maybe it's different in the US, idk.
thing is, the kind of guy who posts in incel tears is never going to marry a hot girl who got tons of dick anyway. they will marry fat, extremely ugly femcel types if anything, and those women will relate to them.
they are worrying about nonsense because this entire conversation hinges on the fact that a loser like them could ever date the cool girl in college who fucked 200 guys anyway.
I love how they always imply it doesn't matter. They really want to have their cake and eat it too. When people are free in their actions they also should take responsibility for them, but we can't have that, of course.
Whether it's good or bad, saying that your numbers say nothing about who you are as a person, your values, possible relationship success rates, and so on seems straight up delusional.
It's not just aimed at women, is it. The first two of those graphs are actually not divided up by sex at all. As in, divorce is correlated with number of sexual partners for both men and women.
I think so and that's how I understood it as well. I wouldn't judge men and women differently on their numbers (although I think there's a double standard that for men it's more socially acceptable to have a high partner count), it obviously says something about both men and women and I'm not surprised that there's a strong correlation with relationship success rates.
Counselor here, I know people like to virtue signal about how, "it doesn't matter how many sexual partners someone has had" but, it is pretty evident that men and women who have had many sexual partners are typically more dysfunctional in relationships. This applies to both men and women also, I read several studies that found that men and women who have had more than 10 sex partners before marriage had the highest likelihood of divorce later in life.
to be fair, i don't really see the problem with women like her at all. men often do the same thing (well chad does anyway, not the losers on inceltears), fuck a bunch of dumb thots, and then actually want a serious relationship when you're older.
first of all, young people shouldn't even be in relationships, they are fucking stupid. no relationship that doesn't involve people who are at LEAST 25 or older should even be remotely taken seriously by anyone. second of all, it IS better to fuck around while you're young, other wise you get the kind of girl who never did that stuff , and she wonders what it's like, and she breaks up with you during the "7 year itch" to go get 10 million cocks during some female mid life crisis style event. basically the entire plot to "eat pray love" is about girls like that.
at least the chicks who partied when younger know that it's empty and soulless, they are now grown up and shit and want something real. also, any girl that didn't fuck around when younger is a loser, just like any guy that couldn't get ass when he was younger, and no one wants to marry a loser.
115 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-07-16
Have you posted bussy yet?
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Ultrashitposter 2018-07-16
/u/NawtAGoodNinja your post history is filled with endless submissions to /r/inceltears. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist about this obsession?
1 cyberpunkforall 2018-07-16
Frightening
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
/u/NawtAGoodNinja wasted her time getting a psych degree just to bully virgins on the Internet.
You don't need to take out student loans to mock dry dicks, dummy. It's really easy.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-07-16
Inceltears is full of incels in denial? Who would have thought?
1 -4x- 2018-07-16
Incels and whores, but mostly incels.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
Being a whore is a noble profession and should not be denigrated by comparison to inceltears users.
1 nmx179 2018-07-16
No it isnt you desperate fuckin' incel
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
Lol imagine /u/nmx179 calling anyone else an incel.
1 nmx179 2018-07-16
Pretty sure I just called you one, cause you are one, but nice combo no-u and non-denial, incel.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
Did you transtition from incel to femcel?
1 kippot 2018-07-16
Don't you have some raging about ethics to do?
1 nmx179 2018-07-16
Your posting is so bad it's probably unethical, I could rage about that if it makes you feel better about your micropenis.
1 kippot 2018-07-16
Projection 101 there, gaymergayter
1 nmx179 2018-07-16
"projection", the second semester college freshman's "no u"
1 DumNerds 2018-07-16
my god how could we not have noticed. This man is very intelligent! We’ll never defeat him in the coliseum of debate, his mighty brain is far too powerful!
1 kippot 2018-07-16
Not an argument.
1 Jimbo_B_Beterson 2018-07-16
It's not about what you got it's how you use it. Not that it will help an incel like you
1 uniqueguy263 2018-07-16
Why tf did the dumbass mods remove that content. Removing shit is a total bitch move
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
a
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
a
1 Blargkliggle 2018-07-16
Remind me, which one is the one bombing the other by pressing a button while sitting in an off 2000 miles away. You can have your sandbox and your bronze age beliefs, I'll stick with the people who won't kill you for believing in the wrong fairytale.
1 push_ecx_0x00 2018-07-16
You're next
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
If this is referring to drone strikes, what's your point?
Have fun getting pozzed.
Also:
1 Dopella 2018-07-16
he may be a redditor for 22 minutes, but you are a faggot for life
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
that was pretty good tbh
1 PPPD-488 2018-07-16
Preach!
1 MoonCricketJamFace 2018-07-16
They may not have trannys, but they’ve been fucking little boys and goats and drinking camel piss for ages.
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
a
1 MoonCricketJamFace 2018-07-16
Who the fuck is Eugene? And what’s a Nintendo switch?
1 telandrias 2018-07-16
It's incels all the way down
1 Zeriell 2018-07-16
We are all incels in spirit, even chads.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
This is deep
1 TheRealTrueDarkLord 2018-07-16
Chadcels.
1 SAC-Lawn_Gnome 2018-07-16
I feel like they think hating on other more open Incels is some type of self-flagellation that will redeem themselves in some Women's eyes.
1 lol_te_gusto 2018-07-16
Ah a 'no u' lifestyle type
1 Aimless_Drifter 2018-07-16
p r o j e c t i o n
1 nomad1c 2018-07-16
lmao. i mean i was assumed it, but seeing it all laid out there is kinda satisfying
like what normal person would spend all day obsessing about virgin guys?
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-16
They banned me there. The moderators seem to be vile people.
1 banananutbranmuffin 2018-07-16
The moderators on most subs are vile people, subs want a circle jerk where people smell each other's farts and compliment one another for it.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-16
yeah but subs like this one or the other meta subs like srd or circlebroke2 are especially bad. they'll ban you for disagreeing and for saying the most harmless things.
1 uniqueguy263 2018-07-16
Meta subs are fun, call-out subs are shit. At least cb2 and here are laughing, IncelTears, niceguys, iamverysmart, etc think they're crusaders for morality or some shit
1 wont_be_silent 2018-07-16
There are only two types of
retardsmoderators: the ones who take it seriously (very retarded), the ones that take it with a grain of salt (slightly retarded) and the ones that don't even know they're mods (not retarded).1 lol_te_gusto 2018-07-16
That's 3 types, fellow drama user
1 wont_be_silent 2018-07-16
Arithmetic is for faggots.
1 Nerdlinger 2018-07-16
Yeah, back in the good old days chicks were just throwing the pussy around to any old bro. A dude couldn’t even go to 7-11 for a nice refreshing Slurpee without getting head at least twice.
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
tbf, the nature of hookup/dating apps + hookup culture has made it harder for young men to get laid, plus the younger generations are at a higher risk of developing poor social skills due to spending all of their time on screens and potentially joining groups that make them more repulsive to the opposite sex (e.g. incels, TRP, tumblr). That said, it's still easier for men to get laid and settle down than it has been in human history bar the 20th century. Not that it's much of a consolation to the men who aren't getting laid, but things could be much worse.
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-16
They could, but honestly, in the age of tinder, before I was in a solid relationship, I found it way harder to meet women than back when I was in college like 12 years ago. Dating may have improved from a hundred years ago for just sex, but I general is a shit show as more and more people can't even socialize without a screen, like you mentioned.
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
Back in the day, men had to have some sort of value or status in order to get married, which could take years for them to obtain if it happened at all. In various cultures throughout history, one of the ways to be seen as fit for marriage if you weren't born wealthy is to become cannon fodder serving some powerful asshole's personal project. That's not even taking into account the many various cultures that practiced polygamy or had some sort of feudal system where the man in charge could bang whoever was working their land whether that woman was married or not.
The 80's-late 00's was probably the golden age for men in terms of dating and marriage, at least in the West. Sleeping around/casual dating wasn't particularly stigmatized but hookup culture wasn't the norm for most of that time period, nobody could tell you who to marry and for what reason unless you were in some weird religious sect, and you weren't pressured to marry right out of high school/college unless you were in some weird religious sect. When the internet was around in that time period, relationships were primarily formed on it based on shared interests, and it was a good way for otherwise undesirable people to find a partner because undesirable people were the only ones finding love online, for the most part. Only a very small proportion of adults had been ruined by screens at that point, so social interaction was largely healthy.
Dating culture is comparatively horrible now, but it's a big leg up from what it was in antiquity. At least for the time being. Gen Z is probably fucked lamao
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-16
Yeah the 90's is when I was old enough to date, and it really was great. Internet really did us a number, honestly
1 wiking85 2018-07-16
It probably was easier to get married in the 19th century than the 21st in the West
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
If you were middle-class or above and didn't have any problems like mental health issues or learning disabilities, sure. Shut-ins with social problems didn't have any better of a chance back then than they do now. And even if you did get married there's a very high chance that you would be stuck with somebody you weren't compatible with with little to no chance to escape given the massive stigma around divorce and the fact that most marriages were transactional. It's not even that difficult to get married now, there are plenty women who do want to get married at some point in their 20's or early 30's. Probably the vast majority, in fact. However, a growing percentage of both men and women want to fuck around into their 30's. I don't see many men who are desperate to settle down young aside from the devout religious ones and /pol/ types who won't settle for anything less than a blonde-haired blue-eyed 19-year-old virgin kissless tradcon who wants to devote her life to popping out kids and maintaining a cooking blog.
1 wiking85 2018-07-16
Sure, but that doesn't mean they want to marry any of the realistic options out there. If anything women have higher standards than ever for a relationship: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larissafaw/2012/12/05/why-are-so-many-professional-millennial-women-unable-to-find-dateable-men/#54efe0f08486
What was the chance they survived to the age of majority back then?
Marriage is any better now? The difference now for many is the finance damage of a divorce at a minimum rather than the social stigma...though the legal hurdles were probably a bigger issue, as women, then as now, were the primary initiators of divorce and back in the day you were generally screwed as a women in divorce court.
I doubt the average guy would admit it if he was. But back in the day to have sex generally meant having to get married for reasons of social pressure...so it was really easy to get married for a guy if ge had enough attract a girl, who generally needed to be married to have any sort of quality of life given the jobs and pay available to women in the 1800s.
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
The only standards that article mentions are gainful employment and a college degree. Of course women who are career-oriented will value those things in a partner. Men and women have always been overwhelmingly likely to settle down with a partner who is similar to them in terms of SES, values, level of attractiveness, etc. This doesn't mean that women have 'higher standards than ever', which that article doesn't even imply...it's not even about women at large, just career-oriented women. Hell, that article even implies that they're desperate to settle down and aren't looking for anything spectacular.
What would make them less likely than anyone else to survive to the age of majority? They're still part of a wider community that they could somehow contribute to. Many men of that nature adopted monastic life back in the day, and more recently they took jobs that didn't involve a lot of social contact. It's not like somebody who isn't good with people just withered and died until the internet came around.
Depends on your class.
Divorce has less of a financial impact on men now than it has in modern history. In most cases an algorithm is used for financial dealings, and alimony is only awarded to partners who've spent many years as a homemaker/SAHP (i.e. sacrificed a chance at a career in order to support the household).
So? That's a meaningless statistic unless the reasons for the divorce are known. It could mean that more men cheat and/or are abusive, thus causing their partners to initiate divorce. It could mean that women are more likely to get bored and leave, or that they're more likely to divorce if they're bored while men are more likely to cheat. It could mean any number of things. And what does this have to do with the idea that it's more difficult for a man to get married now? The fact that divorce is no longer as stigmatized means that both men and women can leave relationships that are unhealthy.
That's not true. Family structures were different back then, and unmarried women could live indefinitely with their family doing various work that needed to be done (unless you're talking about poor urban families during the industrial revolution, though in cases like those the life of a woman would generally be shit whether or not she was married). There was the expectation that a woman would be married at a certain age, but in most cases suitors would have to have amassed some amount of resources to be considered. Which usually would take some years if it ever happened.
1 SlowFatHusky 2018-07-16
It kind of is "spectacular" when the sex split in universities isn't almost equal and you don't want to marry down.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-07-16
That seems so odd. Wouldn't it be easier than ever now?
1 Plague-Lord 2018-07-16
Easier for Chad, harder for everyone else because of hypergamy. Women would rather be Chads sidepiece than settle for an average guy, and with online dating they can make that happen.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-07-16
TIL literally everyone I know is a chad.
1 heavenlytoaster 2018-07-16
Or they're banging fatties.
1 kermit_was_right 2018-07-16
The fatties are. But nothing wrong with that.
1 ryzyryz 2018-07-16
if it is your kink, thats fine, otherwise it is wrong
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
for women, not men. at one point in time you could charm women far above your league into banging you, since men charming and seducing women was the only way both genders got laid, women were at the mercy of having to accept whatever men had the balls to actually approach them.
now, women can only go for chad, and refuse to fuck anything but only the best looking men, since they can sit at home swiping dating apps and match with 400 men a day, and choose the best ones, all while sitting at home in their PJs.
1 Plague-Lord 2018-07-16
Harder for unattractive men, because dating apps allow women to filter out everyone who isnt 6'0+, fit with an aesthetic face, and they hold all the cards in terms of supply/demand.
1 cyberpunkforall 2018-07-16
r/BlackPillScience
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-07-16
"Science".
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
there are actually some good studies on that sub. probably is, they only circle jerk studies that confirm their world belief. i've seen tons of studies that say confidence or other positive personality traits can increase how attractive women find men, but they ignore those ones and just post the ones about women's ideal body type and height, etc.
but still, there are some good studies on there.
1 DistortedLines 2018-07-16
Shoo shoo incel
1 cyberpunkforall 2018-07-16
The Black Pill is for us all
1 Neon_needles 2018-07-16
This nigga has never been with an Asian woman lol
1 E_G_Never 2018-07-16
Also who uses the term meat-holes?
1 lol_te_gusto 2018-07-16
Narcissistic man children
1 elskerslapkusse 2018-07-16
You mad, roastie?
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-16
https://media.giphy.com/media/VlY82Rot8UuAM/200.gif
1 the_popcorn_pisser 2018-07-16
I’m confused as hell now. Thought that sub was supposed to be anti-incel but they seem to be very incel-like lol.
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-07-16
I'd tell you, but you seem like a kinkshamer
1 GreatTelephone 2018-07-16
Not to mention that a traditional woman wouldn't marry a foreigner.
1 shallowm 2018-07-16
a
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
lol i fucking love that dude , he's a legend.
1 thats-why-i 2018-07-16
is u/flubbabubbanonga honk4tits alt?
1 libelecsBlackWolf 2018-07-16
So many users there trying to signal they are also pissed off at that situation too, without sounding the incel alarms.
Seems all that white-knighting and male-feministing hasn't worked at all in getting them laid or change women's toxic standards towards men.
Who woulda thunk?
1 uniqueguy263 2018-07-16
Opinion discarded
1 AlwaysFeral 2018-07-16
"Male Feminists" are rapists. Their entire dating strategy is to be a wolf in a henhouse.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
A lot of these "settle down" relationships are transactional as fuck and people often try to delude themselves they aren't. Beneath the inocherent incel rage there seems to be some awareness that "maturity" for men and women is being more involved in the very system which cares about them less as people.
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
That said, pretty much every long-term relationship there is some form of 'settling down' and accepting your partner's flaws and shortcomings. It's just a matter of deciding if they're small enough that they won't fill your life with misery and woe. The cultural idea that a relationship should be based all on feelings or that you need to find your soulmate4lyf/Prince Charming has destroyed a lot of perfectly viable relationships. Plus transactional relationships aren't necessarily a bad thing either. They've been the norm in most cultures for most of human history. They can get real shitty, especially if people are forced together by circumstances beyond their control or barely within their control, but if two people are getting older and want to settle down with someone and get along well, have similar values, etc. then they can definitely have a healthy and meaningful relationship even if there's no 'spark' there.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
Sure, nobody's perfect and we have to accept flaws in our partners. And a super passionate phase isn't necessary for a healthy relationship in the long term. Nothing to disagree with there.
Thing is, when you talk about transactional relationships being the norm in most cultures you're leaving out the important fact that those cultures hid the transactional natures of said partnerships using religious and cultural beliefs, beliefs that fed into the
that you criticized here. Those beliefs have been exposed as BS so what's left in these types of relationships is just raw exchange in place of a higher belief system or passion.
There's still nothing wrong if both parties recognize this and move on pragmatically. It's just that more and more people will be turned off at looking at relationships in this way.
1 snallygaster 2018-07-16
How so?
Could you expand on what those rules/beliefs are? I can't really say anything about them otherwise. If you're talking about things like traditional Christian partnerships, I imagine the 'love' they promise isn't the honeymoon period type of passion that a lot of people think is the hallmark of a good relationship. In those types of relationships, the type of 'love' that they're talking about is the one that grows over time based on shared experiences, cooperation, goals, etc. if the couple is compatible to begin with. The passion may or may not be there, but that type of love has its own merits and is probably more beneficial for a long-term relationship than just passionate love, which is what seems to be emphasized today.
Here's a framework of love created by some researcher; the love that was supposed to grow in transactional relationships of yore is different than the one we value/pursue today.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
Yes I was talking about the style of traditional Christian/Muslim/whatever partnerships that even secular people try to base their LTRs off of to some extent. If you don't actually believe in those specific religions or cultural values wholeheartedly trying to recreate the old style of relationships is dumb. The point I'm making is that the sacrifices that people from older cultures made were made easier to swallow by tacking on extra stuff like rewards in heaven/merit for being a good partner and family person. If there's no passion and you remove the extra religious/cultural stuff you get a very transactional situation where the point is to pump out offspring and preserve wealth in the family.
1 Feanorfanclub 2018-07-16
While true, there's a major difference between learning to deal with the fact your partner is say irrational when dealing with customer support on the phone and learning your partner isn't attracted to you leading to a r/deadbedrooms situation. I think the latter is one of many men's greatest fears about marriage.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
i'd rather be alone than settle, or have someone settle for me. they settled for me despite not being attracted to me? dead bedroom in a few years, that isn't fun. they settled for me despite not liking various aspects of my personality? resentment and bitterness over the years leading to eventual divorce, that isn't fun.
people should be PICKIER if anything. either you are super attracted to your partner and the idea of fucking them everyday for the rest of life sounds AMAZING, or you just stay alone. either you love their personality/opinions/lifestyle/quirks so much that you could actually imagine spending every fucking day with them forever, or you stay alone.
more people need to be fine with just staying alone rather than "settling" for shit they don't really want, which leads to a shitty mediocre relationship that you just don't care enough about to put effort into anyway.
1 soinavoice 2018-07-16
Ah, c’mon.
Maybe because of an obstacle come across mid long-term relationship (buying a house, having a kid) but I can’t honestly see women and men settling for each other upfront on that macro level. And as far as sticking together because of those obstacles, I don’t think interpreting that as maturity is deceptive.
But I would say most relationships that become “settle down” ones start with that romantic aspiration.
1 Destirigon 2018-07-16
How is that tweet even related to either incels or inceltears.
1 Elite_AI 2018-07-16
because incels don't like women who have sex
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-16
I think the x-factor here is that women do some fun/crazy things, men do some fun/crazy things, then you settle down and start a family.
when you're a social orangutan, and no one will let you put your cheeto-dusted fingers on them in an scenario, you never get a chance to sew any wild oats. so you bitterly resent people who do
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-07-16
This is exactly right, but with one addendum. I had a buddy from grad school who was just awful with the ladies. After graduating he became a quant. He ended up hanging out with the finance bros and basically got his shit together (he's still fucking weird, but at least he hides it better). You would not believe the amount of shit he gets from former party girls looking to settle down while he's sewing his wild oats in his 30s.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-16
yeah I mean there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, either. Good for him for having the confidence to fuck n' run, and not just wife up the first pretty girl who gave him some sex.
1 ItsSilverFoxYouIdiot 2018-07-16
I'm not sure if it's confidence or the finance bros egging him on. Either case, I applaud him as well.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
Solid social backing can give us confidence
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
This is actually a good point.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
There are specific cases where this isn't true, and lots of them happen with regards to when someone uses money/status to get a partner they normally wouldn't have gotten.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-16
true
that's what's so funny about seeing some of these elliott roger types whine about being a 23 year old virgin like it's the worst thing ever
dude if you focus on work and improving yourself, one day you'll be rich and pussy will show up at your front door with the morning paper
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
From what I've seen throughout the incelsphere(ugh, I know) is that they're salty about not being considered when they didn't have money. I think on some level they realize that indeed money doesn't actually improve a person.
Being liked mainly cause you're pretty or because you have money is crushing for the men and women out there since it reduces them to these shallow attributes. The increase of people being operating like this makes for an overall more.bitter populace. The perspective becomes e man is just a sex hound and every woman is just a gold digger and both groups are looking to use the other.
1 GeauxHouston22 2018-07-16
that sucks. I'd be angry, too, if my worldview was this cynical
it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy, I would assume
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
Well I don't actually view things like this myself, it's just that I can understand how people who've been burned can feel this way. Again, this applies to a segment of the population that tries to turn relationships primarily into a transaction.
1 soinavoice 2018-07-16
It just feels like that cynicism is born out of poor self-reflection. Personality can compensate for a lot, and it is nice to know you’re getting laid or finding relationships because partners just enjoy your company.
I had problems getting date #2’s until I started seeing a therapist and working on my own views toward relationships, whether romantic, platonic or sexual.
1 schoolboystirner 2018-07-16
I'm not sure how this relates to my post, but I agree.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2018-07-16
But money does improve a person, and the ability to get money is as inherent a quality as the way you look.
1 RealJackAnchor 2018-07-16
I wouldn't have even said that kid was fuck ugly compared to most people I see. I'm sorry but if you're halfway decent looking and drive a Beamer and still can't get pussy, there's something wrong with your shitty personality. Period.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
he already was rich lol.
1 Enrico_Motassa 2018-07-16
That's not just incels. There are a lot of angry nerds out there who have money now because that engineering degree finally paid off and they just complain about how they can't find their equivalent partner.
Which I mean, I kinda get? It's the old analogy of relationships being like tennis. You don't want to play with someone who is either way better/worse than you because tennis (and relationships) is more fun between equals.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-16
they're obviously bitter because they never could make such experiences and they also assume that most other people do. Then the only way they could possibly get a girl out of their league is later in life through money and prestige, assuming they manage to achieve those, but if they're not stupid they're aware that she wouldn't have cared for them 10 years ago and is only doing so for stability reasons and to settle down which they (understandably) find frustrating (but also kinda their fault if they have to get with someone way out of their league).
btw, I feel like the whole narrative that most guys / girls constantly party and sleep around a ton during college isn't necessarily true. Obviously anecdotal but most of my peers during my Bachelor were in relationships, mostly long-term ones too. Maybe it's different in the US, idk.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
thing is, the kind of guy who posts in incel tears is never going to marry a hot girl who got tons of dick anyway. they will marry fat, extremely ugly femcel types if anything, and those women will relate to them.
they are worrying about nonsense because this entire conversation hinges on the fact that a loser like them could ever date the cool girl in college who fucked 200 guys anyway.
1 BANNED4HARRASMENT 2018-07-16
ITS THE BLOODY WALL SHOW MATE!
1 respaaaaaj 2018-07-16
I mean I'd rather be sleeping with Scarlett Johanssen than any woman I ever have or ever will so they're all settling right?
1 lifesbrink 2018-07-16
u/cantpingthis doing the lords work in that thread. The subreddit doesn't ever catch on, either
1 thx_II38 2018-07-16
The incel watchdog sub needs a watchdog sub.
1 spookyguy109 2018-07-16
That's us. We watch the Watchmen.
1 double-happiness 2018-07-16
This is a good comment chain.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-16
I love how they always imply it doesn't matter. They really want to have their cake and eat it too. When people are free in their actions they also should take responsibility for them, but we can't have that, of course.
Whether it's good or bad, saying that your numbers say nothing about who you are as a person, your values, possible relationship success rates, and so on seems straight up delusional.
1 double-happiness 2018-07-16
It's not just aimed at women, is it. The first two of those graphs are actually not divided up by sex at all. As in, divorce is correlated with number of sexual partners for both men and women.
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-07-16
I think so and that's how I understood it as well. I wouldn't judge men and women differently on their numbers (although I think there's a double standard that for men it's more socially acceptable to have a high partner count), it obviously says something about both men and women and I'm not surprised that there's a strong correlation with relationship success rates.
1 banananutbranmuffin 2018-07-16
Counselor here, I know people like to virtue signal about how, "it doesn't matter how many sexual partners someone has had" but, it is pretty evident that men and women who have had many sexual partners are typically more dysfunctional in relationships. This applies to both men and women also, I read several studies that found that men and women who have had more than 10 sex partners before marriage had the highest likelihood of divorce later in life.
1 TransexualWiener 2018-07-16
to be fair, i don't really see the problem with women like her at all. men often do the same thing (well chad does anyway, not the losers on inceltears), fuck a bunch of dumb thots, and then actually want a serious relationship when you're older.
first of all, young people shouldn't even be in relationships, they are fucking stupid. no relationship that doesn't involve people who are at LEAST 25 or older should even be remotely taken seriously by anyone. second of all, it IS better to fuck around while you're young, other wise you get the kind of girl who never did that stuff , and she wonders what it's like, and she breaks up with you during the "7 year itch" to go get 10 million cocks during some female mid life crisis style event. basically the entire plot to "eat pray love" is about girls like that.
at least the chicks who partied when younger know that it's empty and soulless, they are now grown up and shit and want something real. also, any girl that didn't fuck around when younger is a loser, just like any guy that couldn't get ass when he was younger, and no one wants to marry a loser.