Should you have no standards if you are an incel?

[INT]

should i end it ill never get a gf agan

You should get a more mature perspective on women, dating and relationships because your current view is very toxic and a recipe for ending up bitter and alone.

 

[Feelsbadman]

You should get a more mature perspective on women, dating and relationships because your current view is very toxic and a recipe for ending up bitter and alone.

That's fair but I don't think it's right to say that someone is an incel sl*t shamer because they don't want to have a relationship or date a girl who has been with many men.
Do you agree/disagree?

 

[INT]

That's fair but I don't think it's right to say that someone is an incel sl*t shamer because they don't want to have a relationship or date a girl who has been with many men.
Do you agree/disagree?

Define many? I mean, I have had sex with maybe 20-25 women. I am sure my current girl would prefer to hear that number would be slightly lower. If she would tell me she had sex with exactly the same number of guys I would also prefer to hear that the number would be lower. But if it's not, well... big deal. She still is a smart, kind and beautiful person. We are all entitled to have a wild phase during our life.

It is just very hypocrite to want a partner who is a virgin if you yourself want to screw many women.

 

[Feelsbadman]

Define many? I mean, I have had sex with maybe 20-25 women. I am sure my current girl would prefer to hear that number would be slightly lower. If she would tell me she had sex with exactly the same number of guys I would also prefer to hear that the number would be lower. But if it's not, well... big deal. She still is a smart, kind and beautiful person. We are all entitled to have a wild phase during our life.

It is just very hypocrite to want a partner who is a virgin if you yourself want to screw many women.

I'm not sure how that is hypocritical though?

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Women can have sex incredibly easily where as believe it or not mot men aren't having sex in fact 80% barely have sex. For a man to have lot of sex he is probably a high value male. Meaning he exceeds in looks, money or status. Having many partners is a by product of being a high value male. It's actually pretty rare for a male to have many sexual partners.

A women can sleep with whoever she wants whenever she wants. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. A women who gives her self to any man that gives her a bit of attention. What does that say about her? A Women who has slept with over 40, 50, or even 100 guys - It really isn't a "big deal"? really?
It bears no implication about her character, her judgment, her ability to bond, her ability to keep a male interested? Usually if a female is highly promiscuous it's a by product of underlying issues. Women are not designed to "spread their seed" otherwise the world would be a lot different. Powerful bonding hormones are released when a women has sex with a male. These hormones are designed so that a women is inclined to keep the man and protect her from danger (caveman times). So if a girl is having sex with a different guy all the time it defies basic human evolution.

I don't want a virgin, but I don't understand the logic behind "i've been with 50 partners so it's ok that my girlfriend has been with 50 partners" Because it doesn't make sense at all. Maybe in a world where man and women would equally get access to sex that would make sense. but thats not the world we live in. Moreover, imagine being with a women, taking her out, investing in her, spending time with her knowing that 100s of men before you used her as nothing more than c*m dumpster and had se x with her over a few messages. You'd have to be a man with no salt to accept that fact

 

[INT]

I'm not sure how that is hypocritical though?

That doesn't make sense to me at all.

Women can have sex incredibly easily where as believe it or not mot men aren't having sex in fact 80% barely have sex. For a man to have lot of sex he is probably a high value male. Meaning he exceeds in looks, money or status. Having many partners is a by product of being a high value male. It's actually pretty rare for a male to have many sexual partners.

A women can sleep with whoever she wants whenever she wants. Women are the gatekeepers to sex. A women who gives her self to any man that gives her a bit of attention. What does that say about her? A Women who has slept with over 40, 50, or even 100 guys - It really isn't a "big deal"? really?
It bears no implication about her character, her judgment, her ability to bond, her ability to keep a male interested? Usually if a female is highly promiscuous it's a by product of underlying issues. Women are not designed to "spread their seed" otherwise the world would be a lot different. Powerful bonding hormones are released when a women has sex with a male. These hormones are designed so that a women is inclined to keep the man and protect her from danger (caveman times). So if a girl is having sex with a different guy all the time it defies basic human evolution.

I don't want a virgin, but I don't understand the logic behind "i've been with 50 partners so it's ok that my girlfriend has been with 50 partners" Because it doesn't make sense at all. Maybe in a world where man and women would equally get access to sex that would make sense. but thats not the world we live in

So your point is:

Men sleeping with as many women as they want: Good
Women sleeping with as many men as they want: Bad

Correct?

 

[INT]

Lol you're making so many bad analogies.

@disfiguredyoungman explained it best why your logic is flawed.

Again, a lazy attempt to not having to address the content of my post. I expected better from you.

 

[INT]

First of all nature doesn't want us to do anything. A deterministic process has provided us with a soft- and hardware, that can be ambiguous and flexible in instances, depending on the situation.

I agree with this. Nature has no will. I framed my post that was because the user who I replied to framed it this way.

Secondly, monogamy is not that uncommon in nature, it occurs among basically all clades, from fish to mammals.
And specifically in humans social monogamy seems to be the prevalent mating strategy as well. Among advanced societies as well as the most basal hunterer and gatherer societies. So we actually seem to have involved to practice a form of monogamy.

In nature, only a small amount of species practice monogamy. In human history there are many accounts of societies that practice monogamy and society that practice non-monogamy.

The whole angle of your post is based on the implicit idea, that positive inclinations are derrived from 'animalistic evolutionary artefacts'. Whereas your negative inclination to not follow that urge is somehow a high minded human trait, seperate from kingdom of animals and the evolutionary process. No, that's not correct. Other animals have been proven to show restraint in favor of more longterm goals or potential negative side effects of the immediate action.
Evolution provided us with basic urges, inclinations and fears, that can sometimes be competing with each other. If you decide not to bang your secretary in fear of ruining your relationship with your spouse, or because you don't want to cause her potential pain, you are simply following a different line of code that was naturally selected for.

Partially agree. The more we have developed as a species, the more we have moved away from our natural instincts in many ways due to the development of morality and a better sense of long term decision making.

No idea where you got the idea from that men secretely would want to sh*t everywhere if they could though...maybe that's just your personal preference.

It is


Again, the main point of my initial post is that we should not let 'what nature is trying to tell us' dictate how to live our lives, but our individual free will.

 

[vondoom]

you didnt understand anything and still keep talking... maybe work on comprehension skills first...

 

[Feelsbadman]

multiple studies also show relation to sexual partners and divorce ratws ans unhappy marriages
but nah u guys r right lol
im not bothering with these cucks anymore

 

[INT]

But the point everyone else is making and you seem to miss or ignore is the simple fact we don't even have free will in the face of biological reality.

True

A woman may want her own biological children at age 50, but the chance of her getting that is almost 0% via the normal route. Nature, in many ways does dictate our life, your free will in most cases is irrelevant to biological reality. Our technology is still much too primitive to change this fact.

Yes, it is the hard truth that it is almost impossible for a 50 year old woman to get children via the normal route. However, I do not think that just because women are at their prime furtility at in their early twenties that that is for everyone the best time to get children, given that people nowadays can have many other goals in life that would become much harder when you would get children then. So even though nature 'tells us' (again, I do not like to use these words) to get children at that age, it is not always ideal for everyone.

And in the case of women having children at older age (30+), every doctor agrees. It's better for her and the child to have children sooner than later but please use the argument of "free will" when talking to a doctor on why women should have children later in life, would love to see their reaction....

The funny thing is that I had a similar discussion with one of my closest female friends. She IS a doctor. She went to a third-world country during her late 20's to be a doctor there, which was her dream for more than ten years. She used the same words that I used earlier in this discussion. She made the decision to trade a few percentages of furtitlity over the 100% certainty that she would regret never having followed her dream. She came back to my country a few years ago and has just given birth to her second child (she is 36 now). She found her sweet spot between her own 'free wil' and 'biological reality'.

I know you're more on the liberal/leftist side but your view on reality is unrealistic and even a bit utopian. It's a bit like the far left screaming there is no difference between a man and a woman, gender is "fluid" in their eyes... they may want it to be that way but by every objective measure, man and woman are not 100% identical.

I am not as liberal as you think. I am somewhat in the middle, the topics that tend to get brought up on this forum (sexism, Trump, science, religion) are just the ones that I have more progressive attitudes towards. Not sure how that is relevant though. I also do not believe that gender is fluid and I do not believe my belief regarding women who balance their career and their furtility is utopian. I see it happen a lot in my environment but maybe my environment is not 'average'.

 

[INT]

multiple studies also show relation to sexual partners and divorce ratws ans unhappy marriages
but nah u guys r right lol
im not bothering with these cucks anymore

Please provide these studies, I am genuinely curious.

 

[vondoom]

Please provide these studies, I am genuinely curious.

doesnt need to... he knows the truth...
just cant figure out why he gets rejected all the time... oh wait, must be the looooks...

 

[vondoom]

True

Yes, it is the hard truth that it is almost impossible for a 50 year old woman to get children via the normal route. However, I do not think that just because women are at their prime furtility at in their early twenties that that is for everyone the best time to get children, given that people nowadays can have many other goals in life that would become much harder when you would get children then. So even though nature 'tells us' (again, I do not like to use these words) to get children at that age, it is not always ideal for everyone.



The funny thing is that I had a similar discussion with one of my closest female friends. She IS a doctor. She went to a third-world country during her late 20's to be a doctor there, which was her dream for more than ten years. She used the same words that I used earlier in this discussion. She made the decision to trade a few percentages of furtitlity over the 100% certainty that she would regret never having followed her dream. She came back to my country a few years ago and has just given birth to her second child (she is 36 now). She found her sweet spot between her own 'free wil' and 'biological reality'.




I am not as liberal as you think. I am somewhat in the middle, the topics that tend to get brought up on this forum (sexism, Trump, science, religion) are just the ones that I have more progressive attitudes towards. Not sure how that is relevant though. I also do not believe that gender is fluid and I do not believe my belief regarding women who balance their career and their furtility is utopian. I see it happen a lot in my environment but maybe my environment is not 'average'.

it is always the same people who follow the same thoughts, complain about the same nonsense from the safety behind the screen...

probably would be contemplating suicide if they found out that where i live people get children at the age of 40... a trend recently increasing... now why complain about it? do they gain anything from it? most certainly not...

im also quite sure that most of the people who would want a traditional young wife, would not be able to provide what a traditional husband would provide and also most likely wouldnt like the wife traditionally caring more about the children and the household than about the husbands dick (dont forget religion usually being a part of those traditional families)...
one thing would stay the same the same though: the old matches^^

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Partially agree. The more we have developed as a species, the more we have moved away from our natural instincts in many ways due to the development of morality and a better sense of long term decision making.

No. You still don't understand.
Morals are derrived entirely from your biology all the same. They are not inherently a signal from a more sophisticated level of development. Even primates, that are only distantly related to us already have a very strong sense of justice and injustice.
The same sentiments can be found even in other clades, as long as the species is social.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

In nature, only a small amount of species practice monogamy. In human history there are many accounts of societies that practice monogamy and society that practice non-monogamy.

Even in societies, that permit polygamy, more often than not the vast majority is actually practicing social monogamy. It's in the paper as well.

Again, the main point of my initial post is that we should not let 'what nature is trying to tell us' dictate how to live our lives, but our individual free will.

Free will doesn't exist, especially not as a realm seperate from your biological inclinations.

 

[INT]

No. You still don't understand.
Morals are derrived entirely from your biology all the same. They are not inherently a signal from a more sophisticated level of development. Even primates, that are only distantly related to us already have a very strong sense of justice and injustice.
The same sentiments can be found even in other clades, as long as the species is social.

I am not saying our ancestors had zero morals and that they all developed during the sophistication of our species. But you cannot deny that what is right and wrong has changed a lot over the years. It is actually in our nature to be racist, to discriminate, to fight out-groups. But the more we develop as a species, the larger our scope of empathy grows. We used to only have empathy for our own group and fight everybody else. Women and black people were by law considered second class citizins not that lang ago... When our scope of empathy started to expand, we included women and black people as well. Nowadays, more and more people care about animal welfare as well (as is reflected in animal welfare laws).

 

[INT]

Free will doesn't exist, especially not as a realm seperate from your biological inclinations.

Depends on your definition of free will. In the end, EVERYTHING is biological, sure. But if I decide to pick one career over the other I see it my personal preference (the definiton of free will that I used earlier) as the dictator of my choice, not my biology.

 

[Feelsbadman]

Please provide these studies, I am genuinely curious.

Number of sexual partners for a woman correlated with percentage in stable marriage and marriage success, for men it was wasn't as evident

 

[Feelsbadman]

The past is the past.

 

[Feelsbadman]

I find it incredible some men will accept a girlfriend or wife with a big sexual history I guess i'm different.