Demographics of inceldom: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Demographics of inceldom (edit)

Revision as of 17:51, 29 November 2019

25 bytes added ,  29 November 2019
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 99: Line 99:
Conclusion: Young people generally have less sex and men even less. Also few people have more sex at the same time, without resulting in a net increase though. But the largest changes are less stable relationships and later marriage.
Conclusion: Young people generally have less sex and men even less. Also few people have more sex at the same time, without resulting in a net increase though. But the largest changes are less stable relationships and later marriage.


=== Sexlessness worse for men? ===
===Sexual frustration is a majoritarian issue===
 
With increasing sexlessness and steady partnerships almost cut in half for those between 18-35, one can see that inceldom issues are approaching a majoritarian issue.  With 51% of young adults without a partner could indicate that the amount of people sympathetic to incels due to their own situation may now be a majority of young adults.
 
===Earlier estimates===
 
[[File:Lymanstone.png|350px|right|thumb|<center></center>‎]]
[[Brian Gilmartin]] in the 1980s estimated that 1.5% of all American men experience involuntary celibacy, estimating them at 4.7 million people.<ref>https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/72931916/One-of-the-internets-most-reviled-subcultures</ref>
A 2012 report by The Centers for Disease Control claimed that within the past year roughly 6% of men ages 25 to 44 have not had any sexual partners. The Washington Post correlated this figure within inceldom; thus making roughly 6% of that age group ''virginal'' involuntary celibates (per Washington Post).<ref>https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/72931916/One-of-the-internets-most-reviled-subcultures</ref>
This graph from Lyman Stone of the Institute for Family Studies that shows that male 12-month celibacy between the ages of 22-35 grew to around 14% of young men as of 2016.<ref>http://archive.is/y1YBg</ref>
 
=== Commentary ===
 
==== Sexlessness worse for men? ====


In addition to the greater prevalence of male inceldom, men may face more negative consequences, e.g. because they have a higher [[libido|sex drive]]. Also, in one study, male students had sex gained social status, whereas female students lost peer popularity the more sex they had.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Males_gained_peer_status_through_having_had_sex_and_females_lost_peer_status</ref>
In addition to the greater prevalence of male inceldom, men may face more negative consequences, e.g. because they have a higher [[libido|sex drive]]. Also, in one study, male students had sex gained social status, whereas female students lost peer popularity the more sex they had.<ref>https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#Males_gained_peer_status_through_having_had_sex_and_females_lost_peer_status</ref>
Line 108: Line 121:
Some [[feminist|feminists]] have claimed the comparison in acceptance to invitations to sex is not a fair measure of how much women suffer from sexlessness because women need to know the men first to be safe. However, there is evidence that women do engage in very adventurous sex with no hope for reciprocity or investment on part of the man, namely if the man has exceptionally [[statusmaxxing|high status]]<ref>https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939</ref> and/or is exceptionally good looking ([[sexy sons hypothesis]]) and even abusive/violent men ([[hybristophilia]]). Van Halen had ''sex tents'' set up at his performances.<ref>https://www.cracked.com/article_22900_van-halens-sex-hut-8-acts-legendary-rockstar-debauchery.html</ref> This proves women do engage sometimes in adventurous, unsafe sex, therefore most [[femcel|femlcels]] are believed to be [[volcel|volcels]]. Feminists have a point in that women have more [[Bateman's principle|parental investment]], but phenomena like sex tents and sexy sons suggest women exploit their ability to choose from many men somewhat, so their inceldom seems more [[fake depression|self-inflicted]]. Women are naturally [[female solipsism|oblivious]] to these facts.
Some [[feminist|feminists]] have claimed the comparison in acceptance to invitations to sex is not a fair measure of how much women suffer from sexlessness because women need to know the men first to be safe. However, there is evidence that women do engage in very adventurous sex with no hope for reciprocity or investment on part of the man, namely if the man has exceptionally [[statusmaxxing|high status]]<ref>https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939</ref> and/or is exceptionally good looking ([[sexy sons hypothesis]]) and even abusive/violent men ([[hybristophilia]]). Van Halen had ''sex tents'' set up at his performances.<ref>https://www.cracked.com/article_22900_van-halens-sex-hut-8-acts-legendary-rockstar-debauchery.html</ref> This proves women do engage sometimes in adventurous, unsafe sex, therefore most [[femcel|femlcels]] are believed to be [[volcel|volcels]]. Feminists have a point in that women have more [[Bateman's principle|parental investment]], but phenomena like sex tents and sexy sons suggest women exploit their ability to choose from many men somewhat, so their inceldom seems more [[fake depression|self-inflicted]]. Women are naturally [[female solipsism|oblivious]] to these facts.


===Females decide over celibacy rates===
====Females decide over celibacy rates====


In a 1989 peer-reviewed study that took place at Florida State University, 75% of men accepted random sex-invitations from random real-life women, whereas 0% of women accepted such offers.<ref>https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf.</ref>  This combats the notion that men have choice in casual sex matters when they are not high-status, due to 0% of women accepting random-sex no-strings offers in a setting high in casual sex. That men have no choice in casual sex matters also makes overall celibacy rates seem to be mostly a product of women's choices than mens.  The Florida study also showed both genders accept dates at a similar rate.  That more women accept dates rather than direct-sex invitations suggest they use dates as a vetting mechanism, whereas men less so.
In a 1989 peer-reviewed study that took place at Florida State University, 75% of men accepted random sex-invitations from random real-life women, whereas 0% of women accepted such offers.<ref>https://www.sciencefriday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/gender-differences-in-receptivity-to-sexual-offers.pdf.</ref>  This combats the notion that men have choice in casual sex matters when they are not high-status, due to 0% of women accepting random-sex no-strings offers in a setting high in casual sex. That men have no choice in casual sex matters also makes overall celibacy rates seem to be mostly a product of women's choices than mens.  The Florida study also showed both genders accept dates at a similar rate.  That more women accept dates rather than direct-sex invitations suggest they use dates as a vetting mechanism, whereas men less so.
Line 114: Line 127:
There have been attempts to replicate this study in practice or theory, however all appear to have been non-naturalistic studies, unlike Hatfield and Clark, making them ultimately not interesting.  They also vary in conclusions.  There is agreement with Hatfield and Clark,<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref> while others point out the original study was about low-information sex invitations, or invitations where the man only disclosed they were human, or, "children of God", so to speak. IE they also hypothesize women will only accept casual sex invitations after vetting the social status or "sexual skill" of men, whereas men accept regardless, making women ultimately the [[sexual selector]]s.
There have been attempts to replicate this study in practice or theory, however all appear to have been non-naturalistic studies, unlike Hatfield and Clark, making them ultimately not interesting.  They also vary in conclusions.  There is agreement with Hatfield and Clark,<ref>https://interpersona.psychopen.eu/article/view/121/html</ref> while others point out the original study was about low-information sex invitations, or invitations where the man only disclosed they were human, or, "children of God", so to speak. IE they also hypothesize women will only accept casual sex invitations after vetting the social status or "sexual skill" of men, whereas men accept regardless, making women ultimately the [[sexual selector]]s.


===Sexual frustration is a majoritarian issue===
With increasing sexlessness and steady partnerships almost cut in half for those between 18-35, one can see that inceldom issues are approaching a majoritarian issue.  With 51% of young adults without a partner could indicate that the amount of people sympathetic to incels due to their own situation may now be a majority of young adults.
===Earlier estimates===
[[File:Lymanstone.png|350px|right|thumb|<center></center>‎]]
[[Brian Gilmartin]] in the 1980s estimated that 1.5% of all American men experience involuntary celibacy, estimating them at 4.7 million people.<ref>https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/72931916/One-of-the-internets-most-reviled-subcultures</ref>
A 2012 report by The Centers for Disease Control claimed that within the past year roughly 6% of men ages 25 to 44 have not had any sexual partners. The Washington Post correlated this figure within inceldom; thus making roughly 6% of that age group ''virginal'' involuntary celibates (per Washington Post).<ref>https://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/72931916/One-of-the-internets-most-reviled-subcultures</ref>
This graph from Lyman Stone of the Institute for Family Studies that shows that male 12-month celibacy between the ages of 22-35 grew to around 14% of young men as of 2016.<ref>http://archive.is/y1YBg</ref>


==Other countries==
==Other countries==
Bibipi
Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538

edits

Retrieved from "https://incels.wiki/w/Special:MobileDiff/38671"

Navigation menu