Incel and Lonely Men Debate thread - Defend men giving up or tell them otherwise

[PrimeRadiant]

Both incels and femcels cope about a "time of retribution" but the former has zero chance of seeing that happening. On the other hand femcel rhetoric dominates feminist academia.

Femcels are, on the whole, more socially dangerous than incels. Incels mostly live lives of lonely, isolated desperation, and will very rarely go out in a blaze of bullets. Femcels take out their rage by getting involved in things and using whatever positions they gain to inflict suffering on the people around them.

There is one exception to this and this is if some charismatic figure or idea is able to capture the imaginations of the incels and turn them into an actual movement. Then you have the sort of thing that overturns civilisations. The new world was conquered by men looking for brides. The Islamic movements in many parts of the world are fuelled by the same thing. Boko Haram recruits by promising to give its members brides.

 

[isalaide]

May I ask a question in good faith?

There seems in discussion about male loneliness and female loneliness to be a qualitative difference between the two, so sometimes people speak past each other.

Female loneliness is considered to be relieved generally by a sufficiently supportive social circle, by which I mean single women and widows are generally contented with the society of family and friends and 'things to do'. Women don't seem to focus on the lack of a partner as defining loneliness.

But discussion about male loneliness seems to focus pretty exclusively on 'tfw no gf'. So the advice that would be (and is) given to women about 'do hobbies, spend more time with family, make new friends' always goes over like a drink of cold sick. The response is understandably along the lines of 'you don't get it, friends wouldn't cure the loneliness'. And I... don't get it. If I was widowed, sure I wouldn't have sex again, but I wouldn't be lonely. I would still have my children, my family, my friends, my wider social connections. Whereas if I lost all that, but still had my husband, I would be lonely and isolated as hell. One person alone couldn't fulfil that need for social connection for me.

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

 

[PrimeRadiant]

May I ask a question in good faith?

There seems in discussion about male loneliness and female loneliness to be a qualitative difference between the two, so sometimes people speak past each other.

Female loneliness is considered to be relieved generally by a sufficiently supportive social circle, by which I mean single women and widows are generally contented with the society of family and friends and 'things to do'. Women don't seem to focus on the lack of a partner as defining loneliness.

But discussion about male loneliness seems to focus pretty exclusively on 'tfw no gf'. So the advice that would be (and is) given to women about 'do hobbies, spend more time with family, make new friends' always goes over like a drink of cold sick. The response is understandably along the lines of 'you don't get it, friends wouldn't cure the loneliness'. And I... don't get it. If I was widowed, sure I wouldn't have sex again, but I wouldn't be lonely. I would still have my children, my family, my friends, my wider social connections. Whereas if I lost all that, but still had my husband, I would be lonely and isolated as hell. One person alone couldn't fulfil that need for social connection for me.

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

Incels arent just sexually frustrated, they are also often lonely as well. Our culture does its best to eliminate male spaces by injecting women into them or quite frankly, making them gay. Understand..women and men bond differently..male bonding is shoulder to shoulder, not face to face. Its often task oriented. Men dont do casual chatting with non family in the same way women do. we just dont. Our non-blood relationships are often structured around a task..sports, hobbies, work.

This wasnt as big an issue back in the day when we had larger families and actual multigenerational communities, so a young boy would have brothers and cousins and uncles around. But nowadays, in our atomised society, those often dont exist. So most men need to find male companionship in their task groups..hobbies, work, sports etc etc. Want to get a man to talk about his problems? Dont stick him in front of a therapist, get him together with some buddies playing vidya or building a shed or something. Then the guys start to open up to each other with thier problems.

But what happens when you take these spaces away? You break them up, stuff them with women, make them gay etc etc. These kids are left with nothing. No buddies to encourage them or back them up. No buds to confide in while you are working on your bike. Nothing. Our culture is an incel factory because it deliberately prevents male bonding.

 

[Never Scored]

Fifteen years ago incels were absolutely irredeemable freaks like Adam Lanza.

Today's incel is Gary the accountant. Gary is 5'll, 187 pounds, slightly balding but overall in good shape. He makes a respectable 75k a year and owns his own home.

Twenty years ago Gary would be married and eagerly awaiting the birth of his third child. Today Gary has probably never had a woman glance in his direction.

Shits getting dire out there and I don't have a solution.

Two things here:

1) I am assuming I'm older than you. I was an adult and can remember 20 years ago. There were absolutely average looking guys with decent jobs who couldn't get laid because they were socially retarded 20 years ago. Are there more of them now? I can't really say.

2) The implication that your average guy can't find a partner that gets thrown around in these threads really is a bit of a head scratcher. Sure, I've been off the market for a good 15 years and things may have changed since then, but I know coworkers, cousins, friends' kids etc who are under 30 and most of them don't seem to be having major issues coupling up. The only people I know that I know have never been in a relationship by their late 20s have very obvious social issues. That is anecdotal, but it makes me feel like there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in the incel community. It certainly seems like the only way the narrative of "only the top x% of men find a partner" could possibly be true, is if the majority of men literally do not go out and interact with other and work and stuff. Again, that's not to say the number hasn't grown or it's not a social issue, just that it is not as widespread as some online communities would lead you to believe.

 

[isalaide]

Thanks, that's very helpful. Follow up question if you don't mind: how do you get from 'no male bonding' to 'if gf, gf will supply lack'? The kind of emotional support and (I guess?) emotional validation a guy would get from his male crew must surely be qualitatively different from whatever he would get in a sexual/romantic relationship. Or does a lonely dude/incel just want some kind of emotional input, and doesn't care where it comes from or what form it takes?
Is the focus on having a girlfriend/sex partner just because it seems logistically easier to obtain one person for emotional support rather than find a whole crew of family and friends?

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

@Dirtnapninja explained it very well. "tfw no gf" is not the cause of the problem, only an end stage symptom of the problem. If you're an introvert who's always been friendless and sexless, you're likely going to overfocus on getting into a sexual relationship with the naive belief that your girlfriend will singlehandedly fulfill your social/friendship needs as well. That's completely unrealistic of course but incels don't know any better.

 

[isalaide]

the naive belief that your girlfriend will singlehandedly fulfill your social/friendship needs as well. That's completely unrealistic of course but incels don't know any better.

Yeah, this is something that has confused me a bit, thanks for the insight. Anecdotally and observationally, the guy who 'only has his partner' and therefore turns his gf/wife into his personal emotional support animal is both common, and the end of many, many relationships. It's not something from my observations that women like. They don't want to be the only person a man relies on or needs for support; a pair is weaker than a network.
It seems to piss off a lot of married mothers too. It does piss me off occasionally, just because as a mum, I already have to endlessly emotionally support and uplift five little people all the time they are awake. I push myself to meet all my husband's needs for emotional support too, but honestly it is draining. After handling the kids' various dramas all day, my heart does sink when he wants to unpack drama too. it's not that I don't care - quite the opposite - I just get tired, you know what I mean? Drained? Some days it feels like I'm everyone's mother? I'm not really that sort of feelings-y person and I do have to focus to be present for those kinds of conversations.
I do very strongly encourage him to frequently spend time with his friends and dad for exactly that reason. He needs more than just me to fill up that emotional support tank.
This is probably a shower thought, but is this why many men seem to take getting divorced quite so hard?

 

[PrimeRadiant]

@Dirtnapninja explained it very well. "tfw no gf" is not the cause of the problem, only an end stage symptom of the problem. If you're an introvert who's always been friendless and sexless, you're likely going to overfocus on getting into a sexual relationship with the naive belief that your girlfriend will singlehandedly fulfill your social/friendship needs as well. That's completely unrealistic of course but incels don't know any better.

Its not only that, but without a hierarchy of male comrades to find your place in and validation from, all you are left with is to try and find validation from women.

This leads to one of two things. A lonely desperate incel or someone who finds that validation in the extremes and fringes of society, in spaces where women fear to tread.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

This is probably a shower thought, but is this why many men seem to take getting divorced quite so hard?

Not sure if I understand what you're asking but compassion and support from other men can't replace those from a woman, especially your life partner. Sometimes you just want someone to kiss and hug you, or give you a massage, or pillow talk or whatever (it's a matter of preference) and no amount of "I got your back bro" or normally pleasant sports or hobby activities with your male friends will help. Typically when you divorce it isn't exactly an amicable situation, which means you not only lose your partner whom you've been building up your family life with, but you also lose the only person providing you with this more intimate emotional support. It's pretty brutal I imagine.

 

[Agares]

It very much is this, on the female side. They've spent 20 years being gassed up by every piece of media and every institution so now there are about ~2 generations of women who are effectively undateable by choice (if they aren't just too crazy), whether that choice be a drug addiction, financial ruin, obesity, or just plain retarded standards. Sometimes a combo of all of those. The fattest, ugliest, actual crackhoes I knew in Uni who were getting pumped and dumped multiple times per week genuinely believed that they were too good for the men who were using them like fleshlights, but still fucked them anyway. The men weren't much better, but they had jobs (and drugs), while the women were basically dead broke.

Modern female egotism, combined with a widespread female sex addiction problem that nobody is talking about, has utterly destroyed the dating market for younger men in the west. Good news is: This can't go on for much longer and also you can leave. Bad news is: It's spreading and the only places it's not in yet aren't nearly as comfortable or free.

Those types of girls are almost always BPD and drive away every man they get with, which is why they end up in the permanent pump and dump zone. I will never forget this one time some BPD psycho had a public meltdown on social media because guy number 103 let her down easy and left. People were making fun of her and calling her out for being an unstable BPD trainwreck and you know what her response was?

"At least I'm getting dick!" That's the copium.

Non-commital sex is the only validation they can get, but they're miserable deep down. But the BPD means in their mind, they're never wrong and always the victim.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

Two things here:

1) I am assuming I'm older than you. I was an adult and can remember 20 years ago. There were absolutely average looking guys with decent jobs who couldn't get laid because they were socially retarded 20 years ago. Are there more of them now? I can't really say.

2) The implication that your average guy can't find a partner that gets thrown around in these threads really is a bit of a head scratcher. Sure, I've been off the market for a good 15 years and things may have changed since then, but I know coworkers, cousins, friends' kids etc who are under 30 and most of them don't seem to be having major issues coupling up. The only people I know that I know have never been in a relationship by their late 20s have very obvious social issues. That is anecdotal, but it makes me feel like there is a lot of confirmation bias going on in the incel community. It certainly seems like the only way the narrative of "only the top x% of men find a partner" could possibly be true, is if the majority of men literally do not go out and interact with other and work and stuff. Again, that's not to say the number hasn't grown or it's not a social issue, just that it is not as widespread as some online communities would lead you to believe.

This. I think a lot of people in the incel circle are overestimating how "average" they really are.

"Gary" in that example is single because of Gary. Guys with worse metrics are able to have families just fine.

 

[cybertoaster]

Good news is: This can't go on for much longer

I don't see any signs of this stopping.

and also you can leave.

Where? the islamic world? to live as a kuffar? hard pass.

The Islamic movements in many parts of the world are fuelled by the same thing

Different situation, because of polygamy many men can't get a wife at all, its not some cultural trend like its happening here but what happens when one guy has 4 wives: 3 others are left out to dry.

Same happens with fundie mormons, they literally expel surplus young men from their communities so they wont cause trouble, they end up as homeless vagrants because they been living in a compound their entire lives and don't know anything else.

There is one exception to this and this is if some charismatic figure or idea is able to capture the imaginations of the incels and turn them into an actual movement.

TBH its gonna be hard making a movement of any importance with a bunch of mostly unemployed poor men.

But discussion about male loneliness seems to focus pretty exclusively on 'tfw no gf'.

One major problem you're missing is the social validation of having a girlfriend. Frankly if you're a dude and still single past 18 it just looks bad, specially when you're reaching your mid 20s and you still haven't been seen dating a girls. I seen that first hand, the convos going "hey you seen Rick? remember him? from college? he's like 24 and still single, what's up with that?" and that's a mild example, it gets far worse even within the family. This also causes these men to be driven away from their groups, I seen the girlfriends of other guys saying they don't want guys like Rick at the party or any get together because they find single guys like that to be creepy, long gone are the years when people would try to find a girl for the lonely loser friend, they just cut him out. And again same with family, eventually guys like Rick are not invited to parties anymore because while the "cool wine aunt" is still welcome the single uncle is seen as creepy and sad so they "forget" to tell him about the event.

Besides the sexual frustration my guess is incels have seen how what little social life they had basically disappeared the moment they aged out of the "oh well he's still a kid" to "what you mean you still haven't even kissed a girl yet?".

They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

Of course, but incels got none of that either.

Are there more of them now? I can't really say.

Yeah, tons, we never even talked about it back then, incel wasn't even in the lexicon.

but I know coworkers, cousins, friends' kids etc who are under 30 and most of them don't seem to be having major issues coupling up.

Same here, but that's like living in a gated community and assuming crime doesn't exist because nobody there got robbed. I stopped ignoring the incel problem when I saw the numbers and its not pretty, 30% of zoomer men are essentially incels, and BTW those are self reported numbers so you just know its far worse, a guy has to be really demoralized/depressed to commit the social suicide of confessing they never scored.

The fact this is being discussed out in the open now shows you how big it is.

 

[Never Scored]

Yeah, tons, we never even talked about it back then, incel wasn't even in the lexicon.

That's not true at all. The 40-Year-Old Virgin and characters like Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons didn't enter pop culture in response to nothing. The forever alone meme is at least 15-years-old at this point and is probably the predecessor online to the idea of an incel. the popularity of the term "Incel" is new, but it is not a new idea.

I stopped ignoring the incel problem when I saw the numbers and its not pretty, 30% of zoomer men are essentially incels,

I'm split on some of those studies. Some of them seem legit, but I've also seen some posted here where the people posting them draw wild conclusions which the studies themselves don't really report.

I've see a Washington Post one from 2019 kicked around where it claims the number of men 18-30 not having sex is around 30%, but 20 years ago the chart suggested it was around 20%. While an upward trend is obviously worrying, we're talking about a jump from 20% to 30%, not 0% to 30%, and I feel like people who post it often try to present it like it's a jump from 0% to 30%. A large percentage of people in their late teens and early 20s have always been virgins and I think a study specifically focused on people in their 20s would be more helpful. I think it's also fair to question if this is a part of a wider trend of people hitting their life milestones later due to many people now having a prolonged adolescence. For example, my parents had me when they were 22, yet I had my first kid at 30. Likewise, whereas it was once normal to lose your virginity in your late teens/early 20s, is it now just more normal to lose it in the 23-26 range?

Another one I saw posted here showed a large chunk of men in their 20s are not currently in a relationship, and the poster inferred that this means they were not having sex, when that particular number would include men who are not in a relationship but still having casual sex.

I dunno, man, I do agree it's a problem, but a lot of the studies I see posted seem like the poster is drawing some pretty wild conclusions and I'm unsure of how widespread of a problem it actually is.

 

[cybertoaster]

The 40-Year-Old Virgin and characters like Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons didn't enter pop culture in response to nothing. The forever alone meme is at least 15-years-old at this point

Those were comic relief characters, it was supposed to be an absurd situation not something common. As for the forever alone meme that was trendy mostly among middle school kids, if you were in your 20s and using that meme unironically it was cringe (well, lame was the term back then) because most 14yo kids are indeed virgins and those who aren't are either winning at life, rapists or got molested.

but 20 years ago the chart suggested it was around 20%.

No way in hell 20% of men between 18 and 30 were virgins in the mid 00's, given that radfem lunacy wasn't as prevalent as it is today those men would been far more vocal about their situation and media far more forgiving.

and I feel like people who post it often try to present it like it's a jump from 0% to 30%

It never was but I bet it was mid-single digits and then it jumped with late millennials and the first zoomers. Is it any surprise incel discourse jumps into the mainstream at the same time studies like these show these huge imbalances between genders? even online dating numbers are awful, and that's the main way in which people meet nowadays. When I was a teen online dating was for losers and people living out in the boonies.

A large percentage of people in their late teens and early 20s have always been virgins

Mid teens sure, late teens maybe, early 20's? no way it was a large percentage specially with boomers who fucked around way more than we did.

your virginity in your late teens/early 20s, is it now just more normal to lose it in the 23-26 range?

Not normal, anyone who says that age is normal is huffing concentrated copium. Women certainly aren't waiting that long.

 

[PaleTay]

Yeah, this is something that has confused me a bit, thanks for the insight. Anecdotally and observationally, the guy who 'only has his partner' and therefore turns his gf/wife into his personal emotional support animal is both common, and the end of many, many relationships. It's not something from my observations that women like. They don't want to be the only person a man relies on or needs for support; a pair is weaker than a network.
It seems to piss off a lot of married mothers too. It does piss me off occasionally, just because as a mum, I already have to endlessly emotionally support and uplift five little people all the time they are awake. I push myself to meet all my husband's needs for emotional support too, but honestly it is draining. After handling the kids' various dramas all day, my heart does sink when he wants to unpack drama too. it's not that I don't care - quite the opposite - I just get tired, you know what I mean? Drained? Some days it feels like I'm everyone's mother? I'm not really that sort of feelings-y person and I do have to focus to be present for those kinds of conversations.
I do very strongly encourage him to frequently spend time with his friends and dad for exactly that reason. He needs more than just me to fill up that emotional support tank.
This is probably a shower thought, but is this why many men seem to take getting divorced quite so hard?

With older men somewhat but not the crux of the issue.

He doesn't see his friends often enough to want to spend that time opening up emotionally, but he sees you often enough that he can follow up on his feelings. Also, he doesn't have any friend he trusts in close proximity.

 

[BPD Gunt Rider]

Fifteen years ago incels were absolutely irredeemable freaks like Adam Lanza.

Today's incel is Gary the accountant. Gary is 5'll, 187 pounds, slightly balding but overall in good shape. He makes a respectable 75k a year and owns his own home.

Twenty years ago Gary would be married and eagerly awaiting the birth of his third child. Today Gary has probably never had a woman glance in his direction.

Shits getting dire out there and I don't have a solution.

That was me 15 years ago, with a similar job and income for the time.

Now I'm effectively retired and don't care anymore.

I really REALLY feel for young men today, and it's only going to get worse as the demographic cliff years are impending.

 

[gang weeder]

May I ask a question in good faith?

There seems in discussion about male loneliness and female loneliness to be a qualitative difference between the two, so sometimes people speak past each other.

Female loneliness is considered to be relieved generally by a sufficiently supportive social circle, by which I mean single women and widows are generally contented with the society of family and friends and 'things to do'. Women don't seem to focus on the lack of a partner as defining loneliness.

But discussion about male loneliness seems to focus pretty exclusively on 'tfw no gf'. So the advice that would be (and is) given to women about 'do hobbies, spend more time with family, make new friends' always goes over like a drink of cold sick. The response is understandably along the lines of 'you don't get it, friends wouldn't cure the loneliness'. And I... don't get it. If I was widowed, sure I wouldn't have sex again, but I wouldn't be lonely. I would still have my children, my family, my friends, my wider social connections. Whereas if I lost all that, but still had my husband, I would be lonely and isolated as hell. One person alone couldn't fulfil that need for social connection for me.

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

Think about this in evolutionary terms.

Women are valued inherently. Women don't have to do or achieve anything to be respected by society.

Men are disposable. They must earn respect by proving their worth, in some form or another. One way to do this is by being really good at something. Reproductive success also generally gives you an automatic pass on this, if you've proven you can get pussy, now you matter. In a very literal sense, there is now more of you out there, cause you have successfully propagated your genes. But if you fail at these things then you don't matter. The incels correctly perceive that they don't matter. No one cares what happens to them. Society considers them worthless.

This is why women are fine with just "having friends" and doing nothing in life, while men are not.

In the past people would have given even less of a shit about the plight of single men, if they complained they would be bullied and called faggots, of course there were also a lot less of them for various reasons. But there have always been some amount of men that were unable to reproduce and generally no one has ever taken them seriously. This is because men are expendable and thus worthless men don't get shit. The thing that is different today is that now we have feminized cultural norms which emphasize how everyone is a victim, nothing is your fault, you are always the victim of circumstance, everyone always deserves to get the same outcomes because "equity," etc.

Incels have internalized that kind of thinking which shows in how they feel they are being treated unfairly by not getting what they want, which is a quintessentially female worldview. The cultural mindset they have been taught is clashing with the reality of evolutionary psychology and that's what is making them so upset and causing so much cognitive dissonance for them.

 

[TenMilesWide]

May I ask a question in good faith?

There seems in discussion about male loneliness and female loneliness to be a qualitative difference between the two, so sometimes people speak past each other.

Female loneliness is considered to be relieved generally by a sufficiently supportive social circle, by which I mean single women and widows are generally contented with the society of family and friends and 'things to do'. Women don't seem to focus on the lack of a partner as defining loneliness.

But discussion about male loneliness seems to focus pretty exclusively on 'tfw no gf'. So the advice that would be (and is) given to women about 'do hobbies, spend more time with family, make new friends' always goes over like a drink of cold sick. The response is understandably along the lines of 'you don't get it, friends wouldn't cure the loneliness'. And I... don't get it. If I was widowed, sure I wouldn't have sex again, but I wouldn't be lonely. I would still have my children, my family, my friends, my wider social connections. Whereas if I lost all that, but still had my husband, I would be lonely and isolated as hell. One person alone couldn't fulfil that need for social connection for me.

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

I'm not reading the previous replies but my understanding of the issue here is that men simply do not receive certain forms of (non-sexual) warmth and affection from anyone besides their wife/girlfriend. Not in their all-male social circles, not in their mixed circles, not one-on-one. Men will not proffer it because they don't know how/don't see the need/don't wanna be gay, women outside that relationship context will not proffer it lest it be mistaken as a romantic/sexual advance. I think it's less that men require sex for emotional intimacy, more that male emotional intimacy is seen as precursor to/indicative of/part of a package deal with male sexuality.

When people do not offer comfort or support because they don't want to have sex with you (or don't want you to think that, anyway), and the only people willing to engage in that emotional intimacy are those who explicitly do, it forms a bit of a feedback loop

 

[AWizard]

May I ask a question in good faith?

Is there something significantly different about the male need for social connection that it inherently must involve sexual contact? I've heard many times that men require sex to experience any emotional intimacy, and that they don't value any non-sexual relationship for that reason. I consider that has to be bullshit. They get something out of being a father, usually, right? Men value their friends?

But would someone in good faith be kind enough to explain this difference to me? I am a woman and don't have that male experience. There's obviously something I don't 'get', and I would like to get it.

Honestly I think certain voices are just purposely agitated, encouraged and amplified. There's always been virgins whether they're increasing is a slightly different matter, the point is it's only in the last 10-12 years that they've become a "concern".

This "sex to experience any emotional intimacy" is just a particular aspect that's amplified. Bring a virgin at a later age is a stigma, and is usually accompanied with other social lackings such as friends or a social circle. But right now they are a "concern" and thus a scapegoat so this viewpoint is amplified. I'm going to be repeating myself so you can just go here.

Now whether virgins are increasing, and whether incels are increasing, it's hard to tell but general isolation and alienation is increasing, thanks to the commodification and gamification of human relationships and the breakdown of communities among many, many other things.

Now I don't really share the same political viewpoints as a majority of kikefarms kiwifarms, so I don't really know if it's the "feminist's fault" or whatnot but I drew the ire of some people in the other incel thread when I suggested that it was a little bit alarmist to suggest that violence from incels is a big threat, now maybe you can tell me if I said something wrong with that statement? The same poster I replied to also suggested that cause of incels is autism and heavily hinted that autistic people should be disposed of.

 

[Never Scored]

Those were comic relief characters, it was supposed to be an absurd situation not something common.

40-year-old virgins are not common now either. The point is adult virgin men are not a new concept. The fact that portrayals in pop culture were often comedic in nature is really irrelevant. Those comedy portrayals would fall flat if people hadn't met people like that day-to-day. Most people 20 years ago knew of someone --a coworker, a cousin or a friend of a friend-- who for whatever reason was unable to lose their virginity. That's what makes these portrayals funny.

As for the forever alone meme that was trendy mostly among middle school kids, if you were in your 20s and using that meme unironically it was cringe

There is absolutely a forever alone community consisting mainly of adult men on Reddit that started around 2010 and predates the term incel. It had tens of thousands of users even back then. You may have been a middle school kid who used the meme ironically back then, but there were adult men who it was quite real for and shared those memes as a coping mechanism. The Elliot Rodgers shooting itself was a decade ago now. This whole thing is not new.

No way in hell 20% of men between 18 and 30 were virgins in the mid 00's, given that radfem lunacy wasn't as prevalent as it is today those men would been far more vocal about their situation and media far more forgiving.

Let me correct myself. I was thinking of this chart showing the percentage of men 18-30 who haven't had sex in the last year. It is getting higher, and I would not disagree that it is a worrying trend, but you can see it's flirted with 20% at a couple points over the last 30 years, which I find people who often use it to push a certain narrative tend to ignore. This number has had peaks and valleys before. I don't think you can assume it's just going to keep going up into infinity.

those men would been far more vocal about their situation and media far more forgiving.

I just want to point out that we were just talking about how adult virgin men were portrayed as comedic characters ripe for ridicule 20-30 years ago, and here you are saying the media would have been far more forgiving toward those men back then. No man, the idea that you think this is absolutely comical. Adult men who were virgins in the 2000s were treated like manbabies ala Buster Bluth on Arrested Development by their friends and families. We had a guy who was clearly a 30-year-old virgin who used to work on some of our electronic equipment at work back in those days and everyone regarded him with mild disdain. I think you're the one huffing compium if you think the society of 20-30 years ago would have been more forgiving to adult virgin men.

Not normal, anyone who says that age is normal is huffing concentrated copium.

You don't get to define what is normal; the statistics do. If the majority of men today are losing their virginity at 26, it absolutely is normal to lose your virginity at 26. It just wasn't normal 40 years ago.

This was my point about having children. It was normal to have kids in your early 20s 40 years ago, now it is more normal to have them at 30 or later. People's milestones are shifting to later in life.

I'm not pulling this out of my ass. There is data to support this. Check out this chart that shows a decline in people hitting several important milestones before the end of high school.


So the question is: is the same thing happening with young men losing their virginity?

Here's the often cited chart that is used in incel communities that shows 27% of males between 18-30 are virgins:


But the same dataset used to create that chart shows a steep drop off with men in their late 20s.

So by 25, less than 2% of men are virgins.

Here is another chart showing that huge spike in 18-19 year-olds who have not had sex since 18. It does show a rise in people in their early 20s who are virgins as well, but it is not as pronounced, and 24+ has been relativity flat with some slight variance up and down over the years. Note that the issue with this dataset is if someone had sex at 17, but wasn't able to have sex again by 22, they would be included in this number.

So while the data does show men are losing their virginity later, it also shows a very small number of men have not lost it at all by their late 20s.

Now again, I don't disagree it may be a problem. However, I do think it's less of a "Oh my god the house is on fire!" problem and more of a ,"We should probably fix that leaky pipe in the basement," problem.