Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Truecel: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A stronger predictor of sexlessness than looks is, however, neurodivergence, especially odd, introverted, shy, highly inhibited, anxious and [[autism|autistic]] behavior (especially for males), as well as lack of dating skills and lack of cultural [[marriage]] norms (see [[causes of inceldom]]). | A stronger predictor of sexlessness than looks is, however, neurodivergence, especially odd, introverted, shy, highly inhibited, anxious and [[autism|autistic]] behavior (especially for males), as well as lack of dating skills and lack of cultural [[marriage]] norms (see [[causes of inceldom]]). | ||
While it is true that below average attractiveness predicts about twice as high of a chance of remaining virgin in early adulthood than above-average attractiveness, in one study, all of the 26 very unattractive men and 33 of the 38 very unattractive women did have sex by about age 28.<ref>Haydon, A. A., Cheng, M. M., Herring, A. H., McRee, A.-L., & Halpern, C. T. (2013). Prevalence and Predictors of Sexual Inexperience in Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 221–230. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0164-3</ref> This means that if severe physical ugliness does indeed have a drastic effect on mating performance as claimed, this must be limited to only the 1% least attractive (likely even less). This is also evidenced by physical attractiveness only weakly predicting the number of past sex partners, despite looks playing a large role in initial romantic interest (see also [[beauty]]). | While it is true that below average attractiveness predicts about twice as high of a chance of remaining virgin in early adulthood than above-average attractiveness, in one study, all of the 26 very unattractive men and 33 of the 38 very unattractive women did have sex by about age 28.<ref>Haydon, A. A., Cheng, M. M., Herring, A. H., McRee, A.-L., & Halpern, C. T. (2013). Prevalence and Predictors of Sexual Inexperience in Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(2), 221–230. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0164-3</ref> This means that if severe physical ugliness does indeed have a drastic effect on mating performance as claimed, this must be limited to only the 1% least attractive (likely even less). This is also evidenced by physical attractiveness only weakly predicting the number of past sex partners, despite looks playing a large role in initial romantic interest (see also [[beauty]]). In a sample of physically disabled individuals, 47% did not have a partner, while in a matching sample of non-disabled individuals, 30% did not have a partner.<ref>Taleporos, G., & McCabe, M. P. (2002). Sexuality and Disability, 20(3), 177–183. doi:10.1023/a:1021493615456</ref> | ||
The average truecel is argued to be so oxytocin-starved, even a brief touching of fingers whilst exchanging cash with a female store clerk who looks like Whoopi Goldberg or Rosie O'Donnell can send truecels over the moon in a frenzy of euphoria. | The average truecel is argued to be so oxytocin-starved, even a brief touching of fingers whilst exchanging cash with a female store clerk who looks like Whoopi Goldberg or Rosie O'Donnell can send truecels over the moon in a frenzy of euphoria. | ||