From Incel Wiki
(Redirected from Blackpilled)
Jump to: navigation, 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 Scientific Blackpill.

Meaning of the "Blackpill" on Modern Forums[edit | edit source]

The way Blackpill is used by and braincels is slightly different from its original definition, in that it explains the idea that women are picky without referencing the original definition's talk about societal hardship/prosperity. However, the word is still sometimes used as a general expression of fatalism. Also, like the previous definition, it's usage by and braincels is typically centered in evolutionary psychology and sociology. The term 'blackpill' as it is used on the forums attempts to explain romantic partnership as stemming from 3 interrelated factors:

  • 1. Physical attractiveness
  • 2. Wealth
  • 3. Social Status

Five central themes about looks can emerge from this thesis:

1. Looks are necessary to the formation of physical or romantic desire
[edit | edit source]

Women place a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness on potential mates.[1] Women also lie about the degree of importance of physical attractiveness.[2] One could begin to bargain that while looks matter, other factors matter too. One's full attractiveness could be seen as a composite score of their attractive features. Sadly, Looks were the only factor to predict interest in speed dating.[3] Attractiveness and masculinity also predict a woman's chance of orgasm.[4] Looks are highly heritable as well.[5] There is an idea that looks only play a role in small term partnerships, while features such as personality matter more in a long-term relationships. This is not the case.[6]

2. Looks are not distributed evenly among men
[edit | edit source]

Looks, unlike features like height, are not distributed normally among the male population. One could imagine that that looks would be distributed in a naively simple way. Most are average. Some are attractive or ugly. Very few or grotesque or beautiful. The reality is that male looks are distributed close to a Pareto distribution in dating environments where there are an unlimited choice and little cultural influence (like dating apps). Women rate 80% of men as below the average of all men on dating apps.[7] Some put this at an even more lopsided ratio of 95-5.[8] Because of this, and the fact that online dating is now the primary mode of dating in society, a large portion of men fight over a small portion of women.[9] The bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men on Tinder for example. On Hinge, the top 10 percent of men get 58 percent of the likes.[10][11] If likes can be likened to money, then a small portion of men own a large portion of the online dating economy. The GINI coefficient (A measurement of inequality normally used to measure wealth inequality) places the Tinder GINI coefficient at 0.58. This means that Tinder is more unequal than 95% of countries today. [12]

3. Looks are not subjective.
[edit | edit source]

Physical attractiveness is in someway innate and widely agreed upon.[13][14][15][16] Infants prefer attractive faces over nonattractive ones.[17] Young children also make value judgements based on facial features. [18] Attractive features are widely agreed upon.[19] The ratings given for an individual are never too far apart.[20] Even among widely different cultures, universal standards for beauty exist.[21] Women overwhelmingly prefer tall men to short men.[22]

4. The Dual Mating Strategy
[edit | edit source]

One particular UCLA study states that, “a great deal of the evidence indicates two overlapping suites of psychological adaptations in women: those for securing long-term, cooperative social partnerships for rearing children and those for pursuing a dual-mating strategy in which women secure a social partner and engage in selective sexual affairs to gain access to genes [that are more in line with natural sexual desires] for offspring”.[23]

Women are currently dramatically more attracted to men in relationships than single men.[24][25][26] Heterosexual women's natural sexual proclivities are also a catch-22. The woman naturally highly prefers a pre-selected partner (more than men), but selected men are by definition taken. The female is naturally inclined to spend her pre-child years rejecting men who aren't highly desired by other women. Once she wants to have children, there is also an incentive to keep a non-selected man around. In this situation, she has sex with unattainable men in her more fertile years and later uses less selected men to raise the child or children of the men she slept with when she is less fertile. Her strong desire for men selected by other women often overrides her loyalty to the less selected men that are kept around for children. In societies which don't spend enough effort on preventing these natural sexual desires to realize themselves, she chooses the genes from men selected by other women and later the parental investment from a more loyal male.

The men who are selected by other women have historically been and are currently more masculine than men who are not selected by other women. As a result, women prefer masculine men during ovulation[27]. Fertile women are more likely to choose a masculine man [28]. Even when a less attractive male invests considerably into a partnership, the inclination to cheat to acquire the genes of selected men exists. [29].

5. Hypergamy
[edit | edit source]

Hypergamy is the natural inclination for women to "trade up" in terms of looks, money, or status. In a social environment which seeks to free human sexuality from cultural influence, women become more hypergamous than men because they are naturally sexual selectors. Today, sexuality is very liberated, and women are extremely hypergamous, more than men, to the point of causing increasingly rampant inceldom among the male population. Average women receive 20 times as many matches as average men on Tinder[30]. Women rate 80% of men as "below average.[31] The top 10% of men get 58% of women's likes in online dating[32][33] The top 5-20% of men (ie. "Chads") are now having more sex than ever before[34][35] Women are prone to instability when they are more attractive than their male partner[36]. Before 'enforced monogamy', 2-to-17x as many women as men successfully reproduced [37][38][39]

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

Each one of the five central themes plays a part in deriving incel vocabulary. Looks being necessary, unevenly distributed, and objective provides two familiar categories: the incel and Chad. The social role of looks is also reflected in the use of the label Stacy to denote a better-looking female. However, there is more space left for disagreement over what constitutes a 'Stacy.'

It is often suggested that the blackpill means that "it's over" for incels with a certain physical and social status - that is, that they have next to no chance of 'ascending' or attaining sexual and overall fulfillment. The 'blackpill' also forms a basis for the occasional semi-humorous spin-off that depicts a depressing human tendency, for instance, the 'dogpill.'


Original Definition[edit | edit source]

The blackpill philosophy about society was first proposed 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 defines 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. Not all incels or incel boards promote or believe in the original blackpill definition.

In paragons words, the blackpill was:[40]

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

Overview[edit | edit source]

Blackpill believers may feel that the most alluring aspects of the black pill, is that it gives people who are prone to gullibility an ideological basis whereby they could reject the barrage of "self-improvement" advice that is ubiquitous in media, advertising and in day-to-day platitudes. As such, it serves as a shield for people who may otherwise have faced financial or emotional exploitation.

The blackpill is corroborated by Bateman's Principle which suggests that hypergamy is innate not just for human females, but among female mammals and other female vertebrates as a whole.

A positive effect of taking the blackpill is that it liberates you from false hope, which is the dating scene would mean no longer expending so much time and effort for what is, in essence, a futile goal. Taking the blackpill means you acknowledge unethical or shallow mannerisms in the dating scene or even wider cultural practises, such as lookism and the halo effect.

References[edit | edit source]

  13. Di Dio C, Macaluso E, Rizzolatti G (2007) The Golden Beauty: Brain Response to Classical and Renaissance Sculptures. PLoS ONE2(11): e1201.
  15. Psychological Bulletin 2000, Vol. 126, No. 3, 390-423 DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390
  30. 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
  33. ttps://
  34. 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

See Also[edit | edit source]

Lookism Navbox

[Click to Open/Close]