On incels, dead bedrooms and the hard problems of loneliness

we modified one but not the other. we reap what we sow.

I originally thought they were mostly an old people thing, but I am hearing more stories about it from friends. And we are mid 20s.

I agree this is very Americanised, I can chime from two different perspectives and cultures: Brazil and Sweden.

Brazil is... Very Americanised, I believe that the same issues the USA has with sex are present in Brazil, it's expressed in some different ways but the underlying issues are more-or-less the same. Even though Brazil is seen through a very sexualised image from the outside, it's still a very conservative society where women are shamed for having sex.

Now for Sweden: I don't think anything you said really applies here, people are very open about sex, parents just consider it a natural thing and will allow their teenagers to have sex in their house, I heard stories from friends who had breakfast with the parents of a hook up after a night out, etc. There is very little taboo about sex here, even though not everyone is open to talk about it, the vast majority is completely fine with people having sex.

Which brings me to a point I don't really grasp how it happens, my sexual experiences here showed me that women suffer some similar issues as the women in Brazil: lots of them don't have good sex, not even with their partners, most of the times not due to a lack of communication but a lack of understanding from men. I've heard from girlfriends similar behaviour from men here as in Brazil, not the aggressive type but the lack of care about their needs, a lack of interest and curiosity in sex itself, to improve it, etc.

And then I don't know if this is something global and most men in the world are really that bad sex partners, it was really surprising to hear from Scandinavian women some of the same issues that girlfriends in Brazil went through. Not even counting the abuse, in Brazil it's much more extreme but I was surprised by how many of my girlfriends here had at least one instance of rape or sexual abuse, usually from partners.

From my understanding, in Islam, sex is a normal, expected part of marriage. If one partner doesn't want to have sex, it doesn't give the other partner the right to demand it. Rather, if there is a lack of desire for sex, it is grounds for divorce.

If you aren't compatible sexually then you are not compatible.

I have been married twice. My first wife was practically my "soul mate", we had the same taste in everything. We were best buds, everything was perfect besides our sex life sucked. It always led to conflict and problems.

My wife now we have almost nothing in common when it comes to taste, art, music, hobbies, nothing. We have an amazing sex life though. I couldn't be happier.

That is not how it works in the movies. I am supposed to meet my first wife and live happily ever after. It is the difference between real life and fiction.

Not quite what the parent was talking about. They were referring to truly understanding that some people need sex to be happy, as opposed to others who like or even dislike it.

But understanding what your partner wants (whichever of those three it is) is a required starting point for having a better sexual relationship. There's no amount of counseling that can bridge "Well, they should just feel exactly like I do about it."

You have a point. And the scary factor (at least, in my society) is that admitting this would be rife to criticism (be it insensitive and maybe misogynistic if a man, or shallow and a slut if a woman), because so much of our teachings say that we shouldn't judge others based on looks.

It's not exactly about looks in this situation, but it's a very similar situation. You may find that you need something else out of a relationship, but the not only lack of communication, but *active discouragement" to communicate such inconvenient truths probably causes much more tension than the short term tension of a breakup/divorce

(not to say breakups aren't painful in and of themselves, but it's the difference between keeping a thorn in, and removing it. The latter gives you a chance to heal).

I sense a seduction community vibe in that quote.

This seems based in some fantasy land, though. I'd be absolutely stunned if you didn't have at least a few unattractive friends who do very well in dating/relationships/finding sex partners, because they are funny, or charismatic, etc (speaking about male friends here generally but this can apply to anyone).

If attraction was as you described, no one would be attracted to anyone outside of pro athletes and supermodels. Clearly, many normal, non-models are quite attracted to their non-model partners.

Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.

Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification", it's useful to consider basic system dynamics:

"This paper provides an overview of the link between food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both traditional and emerging threats to security and political stability."

https://www.wfp.org/publications/occasional-paper-24-food-in...

People conflate "explaining" or "causing" with "justification". They also think that by eliminating words they will eliminate the actual problem...

https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/...

> Weston says her abuser used to withhold sexual contact during times when she asked to be intimate. He also used withholding affection as a punishment. “If I looked at him wrong, he refused to kiss me,” she says.

Some statistics only talk about the average subject. If you assume you are not average, there might be a different statistically optimal path.

That's also true for a growing number of women, especially above a certain age. They feel completely alienated by the current 'feminist' movement and don't identify with it. Wonder if the younger generation might not do the same.

I think it’s normal for people to hold some contradictory views. Our web of mental concepts may have a lot of nodes in it that resemble one another, but with different neighbors, that developed at different times in different contexts. Duplicate records lead to poor consistency!

It seems like the commenter, upon reflection, noticed this inconsistency and was bothered by it. But he has the EQ to realize that starting an argument over it is unproductive, so posted here under a throwaway to get some catharsis.

Because perfect is the enemy of good and you end up bitter, old and alone

There are plenty of ways to incentivize monogamy, disincentivize divorce, and yet still allow for individual freedom.

Why haven’t these been tested? I’ll suggest because like all movements, the gender equality movement has been driven largely by extremist activists (who gain social power) and corporations (who gain more workers and consumers), not by average people.

Two-parent households is a very well studied subject. The outcomes for children are better in almost every category with few exceptions.

Splitting in an acrimonious marriage may be better for the parents, but the data says it’s worse for the children.

Today, the restrictions have more or less been removed for both genders.

Again, not saying it “was better back then”, just pointing out what’s changed.

Allowing unhealthy or undesirable behaviors to be economically lucrative doesn’t make them ethically good. To me, the scenario is dystopian because it’s saying we are incapable of managing our own desires to the benefit of society, and instead must (economically) force young women into selling their bodies en masse. Instead of having healthy relationships as the baseline, we just choose the easy option.

Adding to that, prostitution is tied up with human trafficking and lots of other horrible things that have nothing to do with individuals choosing what to do with their bodies.

Technically / logically / mathematically, the solution seems blindingly obvious: Women as a group could help not only (younger) men as a group, but themselves (later in life) too, simply by selecting their partners more from their own age range.

There are many factors that affect standards of life, including e.g. having a shelter or not, etc. Other factors make less of a difference to the standard, e.g. access to education. This is all obvious and should go without saying. What you're trying to say is that 'having sex or not' is not a factor that affects the standards of life, but I think it quite obviously is one as well.

I dispute that causation. Mass murderers are extreme outliers that usually have identifiable mental problems, and I would say the primary cause of their behavior is those mental problems, not whatever particular thing they say triggered them. Also, even if you did show that a certain ideological group was significantly overrepresented among mass murderers, you would have to rule out the other methods of causation (e.g. this guy is a loner because of various problems, and he joined this group of loners because they welcomed him—doesn't mean the group caused him to go commit the murders, and in fact it's conceivable that being in the group reduces the likelihood of the potential murderers actually going and doing it).

Dating apps allow women to expand their dating pool to people they would never encounter in everyday life. I have quite a few female friends and I've been around them while they're swiping around and they are absolutely brutal in a way that's not at all malicious.

Then the regular (male) losers in that system can then all commiserate on 4Chan.

I think a smaller dating pool forced women to give men who _seemed_ less ideal matches a chance and resulted in more successful relationships.

I suspect that both men and women don't have any idea what would actually make a good relationship but they have a "type" that they like. With a limited pool, you could work through everyone of your type in a reasonable time frame. With a larger pool, it can take forever.

Off topic, but such archaic means of warfare still confound me. Imagine being some 16 year old kid standing in the front line facing charging armored knights in the Middle Ages. Or staring across from another line of musket/riflemen and being expected to eat a volley of musket balls while standing straight and unmoving.

https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-...

Better yet, guys need to learn to be the kind of man women want to fvck. They're not obligated and attraction is non-negotiable. Reality can be harsh. Guys need to treat themselves with dignity and put themselves together.

Sex work leads to some very strange dynamics, because often the Johns are desperate for intimacy, but they are paying for women that provide zero actual intimacy (because it is usually entirely faked.) I am sure there is some ideal world where prostitution could satisfy emotional needs, but in my admittedly very limited knowledge it doesn't.

Prostitution has been legal in my country since 2003, however it is still stigmatised for both men and women (at least for my demographic, and I haven't noticed any difference for other demographics.)

https://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/06/comparing-income-sex-...

People love to read and watch game of thrones. But, in real life, they make torture illegal and demand democracy instead of loyalty to lord. So confusing.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/equality-vs-eq...

This is why both-sides-ing or argument to moderation is not really a useful or convincing rhetorical device.

There is no way this can be true. Sex takes two consenting people; there is no "gate" to be unequally "kept" because both parties have autonomy.

Trying to shift to "social scales" to escape the central role of autonomy is a nifty trick. But casting individual bedroom decisions as a matter of social equality is to presume a degree of entitlement in the bedroom. After all, we're entitled to be treated equally, right?

By governments? Yes. By our managers at work? Yes. By those who we desire? No, not at all.

You appear to resent women for being allowed to decide what happens to their own bodies. You also seem to think that this is the only thing in society that actually matters -- that this one thing gives women all of the power.

I believe you should reconsider these positions. Bodily autonomy is a bare minimum. What is it about access to a woman's body that is so vitally important to you?

Both reactions can be rationalized and he has the ability to choose which way he leans.

However, once we choose, we tend to incorporate that choice into our narrative as the solution that makes sense, and reinforce it to the point that we end up forgetting there was once an alternative. "I left my wife, it was miserable, I'm so glad I left", etc.

It is good to not forget that there was once a choice to make, the choice wasn't easy, and there were arguments in the other side that could have won.

Get out of the "dating scene" and just do stuff with people.

I am part of the generation that went through the change and saw both "systems", and I personally much prefer the current one - at least you never reach a dead end like you did when you depended on friends of friends to meet news people. It just requires you to be more proactive.

The market answer is to price relationships with women, weather short or long term. And the market does do this, under various names in increasing cost: hookups, porn, escort, dating, mistress, marriage.

People just don’t always manage risk: children, disease, divorce, alimony, dying married bedroom, aging...

banning / discouraging prostitution favors women over men. But it harms men more than it helps women.

Interestingly, encouraging female promiscuity actually work economically in the same direction as prostitution by adding to the total number of sexual encounters involving women (ie in favor of men, lowering the price of sex with women)

It's not surprising, considering how difficult the topics are that are at the base of these issues, but it's still depressing. We're no closer to bridging the gap between the genders than we were 40 years ago, and it seems to be getting worse in different ways.

Not to belittle people speaking out against abuse, but at some points in life you just see people digging through years, decades of internet comments and more just to find a "gotcha". It's honestly exhausting.

> And I don't think that is misguided. It's just very resolute.

Agree. Celibacy is difficult but can teach much.

With this in mind, I'm not surprised that religious couple feel more satisfied.

Having said that, maybe society does set unrealistic expectations when it comes to sex, and it's possible that skews people's perspective and make them all feel like everyone else is having more and better sex, which in turn renders them disatisfied.

So I'm not putting judgement either way, but this seem like a good explanation to me.

Another aspect is knowing better. If you've ever only had Nescafé, you'll still enjoy it and be satisfied with it as your daily coffee driver. But if you've had top notch espresso from world class baristas, you might no longer be able to enjoy Nescafé the same way you used too. Does this apply to sex, I don't know fully, but I think it could be, and religious couple would tend to have less points of comparison, so that could similarly drive them to be able to continuously enjoy and be satisfied with what they have.

Don't take my coffee comparison too literal, "better" with sex doesn't mean like better partner or anything like that, I think just means memories of better times you've had having sex, of more excitement, choice, and all that. I know some people who have an ex-girlfriend, or a one night stand where they still remember that as their best sex. It might often be more because they were simply younger and it was more new to them, then anything to do with the person in itself. And clearly those would have been terrible partners for them. But that memory kind of hunts them with being satisfied in their current relationship sexually, as they can't help but compare one with the other.

This is just all hypothetical, don't take it as ground truth, I'm only exploring the phenomenon.

It's hard to engage when some of the things you talk about here seem immutable to you but are not even reasonable points of contention to me.

"Pornography leads to hell" <- how can we really have a conversation about any of this if you're making blanket statements about some of the content, especially when the statement is so negative? Obviously if hell were real and if pornography certainly led to eternal condemnation in hell, pornography would be bad, but neither of those "if" statements really lead for much discussion.

What was the goal of your comment?

You seem pretty fortunate to be in a position where you can afford to have unprotected sex with your wife, because many people can't afford that luxury. Perhaps it's no surprise they're depressed with unfulfilling sex lives.

In the West in particular we are crippled with insecurity, anxiety and doubt. Are we masculine/feminine enough? Do we fit the image we have of other people's desires? We have incredible wealth and abundance and feel like shit. It's a societal ill as well as a personal one. It is possible to practice contentment, gratitude, and self-compassion and acceptance, these are just things that are not taught or idealized in our culture. I do think the mindfulness movement, commercialized though it may be, has something to offer to modern secular society.

I agree with the author though. IMO the existence of so many "incels" is some expression of a real societal problem. Many young men are suffering, and we don't acknowledge their suffering as genuine. We just tell them that they suck, call them names and walk away. This can cause them to become more radicalized.

I was raised by a mentally ill single mom, on welfare. In many ways, my emotional maturity really lagged behind that of other guys. I didn't know how to make friends, let alone how to approach women or form a healthy relationship. I did eventually manage, but it took me years of learning during my 20s. When I was a young man, I struggled with some pretty bitter feelings myself, and I feel like society didn't make it easy to overcome them. Even today, the not so ambiguous message that society sends to young men is: if you can't get women, it's entirely your fault, because you are not enough. It just adds insult to injury, particularly when you're really missing closeness and understanding, when you feel alone and wounded.

IMO, the modern discourse around gender only really goes one way. We hear about women's issues everyday, but even in 2021, it's no more okay for men to talk about the challenges they face than it was in the 1950s. Men are told to just suck it up, and that's a huge part of the problem. If feminism is really about gender equality, then it needs to allow some room for men to talk about their issues and concerns as well, without fear of judgment. I would also like to see words other than "toxic" being used to describe masculinity.

some choose food (obesity), some choose crazy partners (tend to be great in bed but bad in life), other choose video games (sense of accomplishment), and others try to help others as a way of hiding from themselves.

most people are running, some though are doing it in a socially acceptable way. but the root cause is the same.

The GP pointed out that the relationship described in this has red flags because the relationship alone is the source of happiness. It would lead to a happier, possibly longer lived, less criminal person.

You seem to be implying (and I don't think this is intentional) that close personal and romantic relationships [for straight men] == a wife. But that doesn't necessarily need to be true. Maybe for romance, but certainly not for close personal friendships.

You're correct that a person isn't an island, but the focus on single romantic partner may be to the detriment of other forms of relationship which are still hugely valuable health wise.

Sloppy analog: If I won the lottery tomorrow, it would allow me to buy a guitar I want sooner than another method; but not winning the lottery doesn't preclude any possibility of my acquiring that guitar.

I'm not sure that not winning the lottery means the path without winning the lottery is harder.

Winning the lottery may even prevent other conditions from developing in the course that would otherwise sustain the goal.

Humans and Islands analogies have been waged in many philosophical battles, but I never gathered that one was settled. Personally, I've subscribed to every man being and island and no man being an island all at once, and think both are fundamentally true in constant contradiction of one another and the contradiction is all you can really point to being true. (the original line "No man is an island" was Donne remarking of man's nature with regard to the Christian god, at least as far as I understood it)

I think if you [general you, not personally] hang your happiness on any one thing you're going to struggle or cause undue burden on someone or something else. And that's what the incel crowd gets so wrong; and I must say the proof kind of seems in the pudding there...

"Why do married men die before their wives?

Because the want to."

I think the difference is between wants and needs. Aside from a very small number of people most of us need friends and family who care about us and meet our emotional needs. Children need this unconditionally but adults have to take responsibility of their emotional needs and fulfill them in a healthy way by making and keeping friends. I think sexual and romantic desires are not needs; they are very strong desires and their fulfillment is definitely wonderful but life can be happy and fulfilling without them.

Regardless, men in romantic relationships should still be sure to cultivate strong friendships

> I was a bit of an oddity in that I was anticipating marriage since early adolescence; that outsized-value for relationships came with what I feel were comparably overgrown feelings of loneliness. I got absurdly lucky when I found my wife, but I spent every day without her more or less miserable. It’s arguable she’s the only reason I’m able to be happy.

So it's not old age, but youth in his case that was unhappy until he met his wife. That does look like a red flag to me. Suppose his marriage goes south, will his (ex) wife now be responsible of not only ending the marriage, but also of ending all possible happiness in his life? That's an unreasonable burden to place on her.

I like doing everything with my wife. It would be hard imagining life without her! Or my kids. But I wasn't an unhappy mess before I met her.

Whats your commentary on people who marry and then divorce very late in life like Bill Gates? After all if the primary purpose was to protect against this aggressively lonely stage in life -- no fault divorce has thrown that guarantee out the window.

They seem to now be in the same position as long term single people -- except it's a massive uprooting stressor placed on you in your final years.

I think the critical part is the "only thing" in the quote.

The same thought expressed as "she makes me happy" and "she's the only thing that makes me happy" are different because of the implied loss of everything (that you will give up everything else that could make you happy to have this person stay).

> until some point after the slide begins that has slowly eaten away at your own ability.

I'd say that is pragmatic, but a very selfish thought.

My parents were taught that by their society ("successful kids" == "retirement plan"), but they didn't follow through with that thought during our upbringing - if anything, they thought they were paying it forward.

For an american comparison, the silent generation of America were a lot like my parents in their attitude towards the future (bright, but built for the kids).

For a while, I could have been described as "incel" (as in the literal description of the term, not the negative connotations it has picked up). I was not exactly popular with the ladies, and my dating history was close to nonexistent. My now wife was my first girlfriend and we met when I had pretty much thrown in the towel and given up on romantic relationships.

In an alternate version of my life I could have lived the single life and filled it with other activities and material possessions. I could imagine myself being happy to some extent living like that into my 30s, my 40s, maybe even early 50s. But after that?

Now I can't imagine life without her at my side.

I think there is a lot to be said for having a life partner that is beyond just a good friend and always has your back (yes I'm aware not all relationships/marriages are functional). Especially as the two of you grow older.

I feel the same about kids. We don't have immediate plans for kids. Right now we can imagine living without kids forever, but at the same time we also feel this will change and we'll regret not having one when we are in our 50s 60s or 70s, etc.

Of course, today, the idea that men need sex simply because they are alive is repulsive.

I'm not trying to be combative, I just believe that it's important to question things we believe to be true when we don't fully understand the reasoning.

Admittedly, though I know OF Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I have no idea HOW Maslow came to their conclusions. So, I just looked it up:

> The most significant limitation of Maslow's theory concerns his methodology. Maslow formulated the characteristics of self-actualized individuals from undertaking a qualitative method called biographical analysis.[1]

> He looked at the biographies and writings of 18 people he identified as being self-actualized. From these sources, he developed a list of qualities that seemed characteristic of this specific group of people, as opposed to humanity in general.[1]

> From a scientific perspective, there are numerous problems with this particular approach. First, it could be argued that biographical analysis as a method is extremely subjective as it is based entirely on the opinion of the researcher. Personal opinion is always prone to bias, which reduces the validity of any data obtained. Therefore Maslow's operational definition of self-actualization must not be blindly accepted as scientific fact.[1]

Doesn't seem like the experiment was very rigorous or even scientific.

The linked article goes on to explain more modern and scientific research on the subject that seems to disprove some of the original hierarchy's assumptions.

[1] https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#evaluation

they aren't your friends then. aquaintences perhaps but not real friends. I'd jump through fire for my friends and know they would do (and have done) for me. but then I also run a tight ship with what I consider a friend. if we haven't gone through some kind of shared struggle together we can never be friends. that's why most men will have trouble making real bonds once they leave their teenage years and early 20ies behind. not much new happens (such as puberty) that you struggle through as a group. try to make friends in your 40ies that are as strong as your oldest friendships and it'll be pretty much futile to get anywhere. it's even worse: trusting somebody at that age to become a close friend is a natural red flag for most men. the smell of danger is too high. you're meant to stand on your own feet with that age and better be used to (or even enjoy) being alone (if you don't have a partner)

Wow, that's two turns of phrase that erode your point in one sentence.

what I recall from my time in my 20ies my desire to be sexually active was a lot more dominant and in charge of my higher faculties than what it is today nearing 50.

biology determines how strongly we feel we need to be with a partner I think. I accepted much more toxicity and negativity just to not be alone (allowing control by my partner over my emotions and was far more ready to compromise) than what I'm today.

Today any potential relationship needs to be solid on a mental level first before I'd even consider going further. That certainly wasn't the case in my early 20ies. Also I'm today able to spend time by myself (and not just get by but really enjoy my own company, thoughts etc ...)

Close platonic friendships that outlast romances are more healthy than requiring each new girlfriend to be your primary means of emotional support. The lack of social interactions outside of work and wife is also a cause of codependent burnout: it’s unreasonable to expect that the same person is good in bed, a loving mother to your children, primary full-time emotional support, and a chef.