Blackpill

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The blackpill is a collection of uncomfortable truths about romance and dating. It has a large body of scientific evidence stemming from evolutionary biology and sociology.

For more information on the science behind the blackpill, see the Scientific Blackpill article.

Meaning of the blackpill[edit | edit source]

In the manosphere, the blackpill refers to a collection of uncomfortable truths about dating and social life, often with fatalist and biological essentialist connotations, namely beliefs that qualities relevant for dating and social life, like physical appearance, personality and intelligence, are mostly innate or natural 'essence' and hence outside of one's control. This belief means male dating problems will require systemic changes rather than individual ones, however blackpillers differ on what these changes can or should entail.

LMS theory[edit | edit source]

Central to the blackpill is the belief in three factors being critically important for romantic success: Looks, Money, Status. The LMS theory was developed in the former anti-pickup-artist community and the relevance of these factors for dating is commonly downplayed by feminist.

The blackpill has the following central themes, each of which is related to one or more of the LMS factors:

Women are just as 'visual' as men[edit | edit source]

Women place a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness on potential mates before they are willing to consider anything else about them.[1] Women also lie about the degree of importance of physical attractiveness.[2] Women are also seemingly more choosy about looks, e.g. they rate 80% of men as below 5/10 with a skewed distribution both in online dating and non-online dating, whereas men rate women normally.[3] The common bluepilled objection to women being shallow about looks in online dating is that in real life women would care about personality and that one could easily make up for bad looks with a good personality. Sadly, various studies showed looks are the only factor to predict initial romantic interest,[4] and they are only slightly less important in long-term dating.[5] Looks are highly heritable as well, so even though life style like bodybuilding can improve looks, most of it is not under our control.[6] Men's attractiveness and masculinity also predict a woman's chance of orgasm.[7] While not as drastic as women's ratings on OkCupid suggest, there is indeed evidence of women dating up in looks, e.g. very unattractive men were less likely married in one study (15% less likely married than very attractive men). Conversely, very unattractive women were more likely being married than other women, providing some evidence for Juggernaut law.

Looks are largely objective, especially ugly people's looks[edit | edit source]

Humans universally prefer good looking people and agree fairly consistently about who is attractive.[8][9][10][11][12][13] They agree more about the looks of very attractive and unattractive individuals, hence for them looks are more objective. People agree less about people of average attractiveness, so here individual preferences play a greater role. Even babies prefer attractive faces over non-attractive ones.[14] Young children also make value judgements based on facial features [15] and parents treat their good looking children better. Even blind men have the same preferences about women's hourglas shape as sighted men, suggesting that these preferences are innate. And even among widely different cultures, universal standards for beauty exist.[16] and women prefer tall men to short men.[17] People also associate physical attractiveness with various positive traits to unreasonable degree, e.g. a good personality, wittiness, morality, intelligence and health.[18]

Women are choosy and hypergamous[edit | edit source]

There is a host of evidence that women are much more choosy maters. For example, average women receive 20 times as many matches as average men on Tinder.[19] The top 10% of men get 58% of women's likes in online dating,[20][21] and even in online dating platforms with an even sex ratio, like OkCupid one finds women receive around 8 times more messages. The top 5-20% of men (ie. "Chads") are now having more sex than ever before[22][23] Hypergamy is a particular expression of female choosiness. Namely, the partner should not only be good, but better than her or better than the previous partner. E.g. women are prone to instability when they are more attractive than their male partner.[24] There is evidence of some women refusing to date down in educational status and marry men with lower income than their own. As women surpass men in socioeconomic success, hypergamy implies that more men are becoming unattractive to women. Men have a higher sex drive,[25] possibly because they have less parental investment. This results in women having much more options to choose from and in chronic sexual frustration for most men.[26] Since men have fewer alternative mating options available to them, so they more readily make compromises and date down.[27] Women also prefer men who are in relationships over single men.[28][29][30] There is a fundamental asymmetry in that men do not care about women's socioeconomic status, but women do care a lot about men's status.[31][32] Because women are choosy, they get bored with relationships and sex sooner, and are hence more likely to initiate divorce.[33] Women's love style more opportunistic and transactional than men's.

Women prefer dominant and stoic men[edit | edit source]

Women are attracted to dominant males, both physically dominant (strong muscles) and mentally (stoicism and low empathy).[34] In one study, not a single woman preferred the physically weaker man when given the choice between a strong and a weak one.[35] Also, most women have rape fantasies.[36] Women prefer men of high social status and high income, in fact taken together, socioeconomic status predicts 62% of the variance in men's mating opportunities.[37] Women are much more passive maters than men, e.g. most of them prefer being asked out on a date vs doing the asking.[38] For men, a relationship is a project, for women it is a choice.[39] Women tend to dislike exclusively nice men and also dislike vegetarians, finding them less masculine.[40] For men it is more important for men to be strong and dependable, e.g. men with mental condition frequently have less romantic success than women with similar conditions.[41] Mental conditions that are especially detrimental are schizophrenia and autism.[42]

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

Each one of the central themes plays a part in deriving incel vocabulary. Looks and status being necessary for men, unevenly distributed, and objective gives rise to beta and alpha males, Virgin vs Chad. Chad represents women's tendency to date up (hypergamy) and to prefer dominant men. Higher sex drive and more active love style in men gives rise to beta orbiting. For women, Becky vs Stacy represent women's intra-sexual competition in looks.

Blackpills often mean that "it's over" for incels with poor looks and low social status or other flaws—that is, that they have next to no chance of 'ascending' or attaining sexual and social fulfillment. The blackpill gave rise to various spin-offs with varying degrees of seriousness, for instance, the 'dogpill.'

full

Comparison to other pills[edit | edit source]

Generally, the blue pill refers to the denial of uncomfortable truths, the red pill refers to the revelation of an uncomfortable truth (an analogy to the film The Matrix), and the black pill refers to uncomfortable truths that either nothing can be done about or it would require changes difficult to attain, e.g. large-scale cultural changes. The term blackpill was presumably first used by a blog commenter named Paragon (see the "Original definition" section below). In the manosphere, the three pills are more narrowly concerned with social and romantic life, and they represent different tribes or ideologies with differing views on issues like the importance of looks in dating. The three ideologies can be summarized as follows (adapted from the BlackPillScience subreddit[43]):

Pill theory Accepts uncomfortable truths? Considers them important? Locus of control
Bluepill Rarely No Internal
Redpill Yes Often Internal
Blackpill Yes Yes External

Both the redpill and blackpill acknowledge the importance of looks etc. for dating, but the redpill claims that one can leverage this knowledge for one's social and romantic success (internal locus of control), whereas the blackpill assumes that for some men there is no help without changing the conditions of mating altogether (external locus of control). The blackpill can be seen as a counterweight to the prevalent and bluepilled assumption that having a poor social and romantic life is mostly one's own fault. It provides an basis whereby one can reject the barrage of "self-improvement" advice that is ubiquitous in media, advertising and in day-to-day platitude and virtue signaling.

A positive effect of taking the blackpill is that it liberates from false hope, which relieves one from expending time and effort for what is, in essence, a futile goal. Taking the blackpill means acknowledgement unethical, shallow and unhealthy mannerisms in the dating scene or even wider cultural practices, such as lookism, narcissism and the halo effect. Many blackpilled incels eventually complement or supplant the blackpill with the whitepill.

Disagreement over solutions[edit | edit source]

Some self-identified incels argue only changing human nature itself can solve the systemic issues outlined above, which would either require genetic engineering, thousands of years of evolution or selective breeding. Some social darwinist blackpillers promote fatalism and advocate incelicide. Other blackpillers believe in biological essentialism. However, not all blackpillers are fatalistic. Some expect a return to more traditional sex roles and emphasis on marriage and monogamy may not be a solution for everyone, but could at least improve the situation greatly for most people.

Original Definition[edit | edit source]

The term blackpill was first used by a blog commenter named Paragon on the Dalrock anti-feminist blog in 2011 and later adopted by OmegaVirginRevolt's blog. In his comment, Paragon defined the blackpill to mean (paraphrased) 'there's no personal solution to systemic dating problems for men and only societal hardship (such as mass poverty) can solve men's systemic dating issues'. In other words, some blackpillers don't believe that a sexual marxist, wealthy welfare state is possible. Paragon, having dating difficulties in Canada, moved from Canada to the Philippines, a less prosperous country than Canada, and married there. It should be noted, though that not all incels or incel boards promote or believe in the original blackpill definition.

In paragons words, the blackpill was:[44]

to reconcile that there are no personal solutions to systemic problems – which can only resolve over evolutionary time.

And any solution will very much entail steep trade-offs, in that males can’t have their cake and eat it too – a prosperous population of deferred ecological pressures (like we currently enjoy), without an expectation that this prosperity will increase the mating latitude of females (dramatically perturbing the breeding population, to the point of near evolutionary instability).

One will always follow the other, as male consensus on these matters is practically impossible in terms of inter-sexual competition(as opposed to the broad accord females enjoy through an abundant wealth of sexual opportunities, courtesy of their reproductively limiting function).

— Paragon

References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0092-x
  2. https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html
  3. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_rate_80.25_of_men_as_.22below_average.22.2C_while_men_rate_women_on_a_bell_curve
  4. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-11095-001
  5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22468419
  6. https://www2.psy.uq.edu.au/~uqbziets/Mitchem%20et%20al%202013%20Estimating%20the%20sex-specific%20effects%20of%20genes%20on%20facial%20attractiveness%20and%20sexual%20dimorphism.pdf
  7. https://putslab.la.psu.edu/documents/Puts%20et%20al.%20EHB%202012-1.pdf
  8. Di Dio C, Macaluso E, Rizzolatti G (2007) The Golden Beauty: Brain Response to Classical and Renaissance Sculptures. PLoS ONE2(11): e1201. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201
  9. https://archive.is/tmkKW
  10. Psychological Bulletin 2000, Vol. 126, No. 3, 390-423 DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390
  11. http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Langlois.pdf
  12. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319178660
  13. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/langloislab/files/2015/04/meta.pdf
  14. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces
  15. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-dev0000734.pdf
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3130383/
  17. https://research.similarminds.com/romantic-height-preferences-in-men-and-women/227
  18. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Attractive_people_are_perceived_much_more_positively_than_they_really_are
  19. Gareth Tyson, Vasile C. Perta, Hamed Haddadi, Michael C. Seto, Queen Mary University of London, Sapienza University of Rome, Royal Ottawa Health Care Group A First Look at User Activity on Tinder
  20. https://hingeirl.com/hinge-reports/whats-the-biggest-challenge-men-face-on-dating-apps-a-qa-with-aviv-goldgeier-junior-growth-engineer
  21. ttps://qz.com/1051462/these-statistics-show-why-its-so-hard-to-be-an-average-man-on-dating-apps/
  22. Harper CR, Dittus PJ, Leichliter JS, Aral, SO. Changes in the Distribution of Sex Partners in the United States: 2002 to 2011–2013. Sexually Transmitted Diseases: February 2017 - Volume 44 - Issue 2 - p 96–100. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000554
  23. https://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2017/02000/Changes_in_the_Distribution_of_Sex_Partners_in_the.5.aspx
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691500505X
  25. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Is-There-a-Gender-Difference-in-Strength-of-Sex-and-Baumeister-Catanese/5f8446340d4ed375007351539e7993fa44e2e31b
  26. Baumeister, R.F. and Tice, D.M., 2001. The social dimension of sex. Allyn & Bacon.
  27. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/71503.pdf
  28. http://digital.library.okstate.edu/etd/umi-okstate-2649.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109001048?via%3Dihub
  30. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1660608/
  31. ftp://repec.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp11933.pdf
  32. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_rapidly_lose_interest_in_sex_once_in_a_stable_relationship_or_living_with_a_man
  33. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Women_initiate_69.25_of_divorces
  34. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Personality
  35. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#All_women_find_the_bodies_of_.27strong_looking_men.27_more_attractive_than_those_with_weaker_bodies
  36. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#62.25_of_women_have_fantasies_about_rape_and_other_forced_sex_acts
  37. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939
  38. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates
  39. http://jessmaxwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Honeymoon-is-over_in-press.pdf
  40. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Vegetarian_men_are_less_attractive.2C_likable.2C_and_masculine_to_women_than_omnivorous_men
  41. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/1390257
  42. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Mental
  43. https://reddit.com/r/blackpillscience
  44. https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/she-felt-unloved/#comment-22914

See Also[edit | edit source]



Lookism Navbox

[Click to Open/Close]