Which option will reapistically solve involuntary celibacy of men?

[marish01]

Which one of these options will help to reduce the number of incels?

Is it easier to improve one's looks than getting rich?

I mean I know any rich man can get sex but I think it's harder to get rich than to get fit. So the option B won't reduce the number of incels unlike the option A.

D is a better option as once you buy you can have for years.(if they exist) Sex bots are like buying real estate while hookers are like ranting apartments. I hope sex bots will be cheap. Lol. Plus you can order any body shape. They will do the job for hours. Haha. And they don't talk too much.

[Anonymous]

the incel thing is not really a problem. like most of them are just average looking dudes who are ackward as fuck and only want to fuck or date super hot girls that would never look at them. they're also brainwashed online to think weird stuff about girls and just like how relationships and life works. that's not at all how the majority of normal dudes or even unattractive/fat dudes think are anyways. most guys who are at least above a 4 face wise or chubby aren't virgins and have dated people before. litterally every average looking guy ever will get laid multiple times and have a few girlfriends in his life. same for the ugly or fat guys except for obvious reasons it's harder right but that's also for girls. it's normal that the worse you look the harder that is and that's just biology, not women being deliberately shallow, plus whats wrong with only wanted to be with people you think are hot anyways.

these guys just need to lower their standards or try to be worth it for the super hot girls they want to pay attention to them. best way to do is to get a life really, and looksmax as they say. science wise if you want to get hot girls for free or have some fall in love with you and date you for real you need to either a) be at least a 5.5 face wise for the girls that are in the 6s. and at least a 6.3-5 (aka solidely attractive) for all the hot girls to be physiologically able to like you like that. you can fake that if you befriend a girl and she ends up liking you as a person if your average. when you like someone it increase how attractive you are face wise and it can do it by a lot. so if you become good looking becaues of that then yea she can catch feelings for you or want to fuck you. b) you body needs to look intimidating. this is a science thing where if a guy isn't good looking face wise but if he has an intimidating/strong stature it makes people associate him wiht having a 'high social status' (like the real life adult version of being popular in high school but everywhere) the same way you would with a hot or rich guy. for that you need big muscles ideally or/and being tall, and having pretty masculine facial features also helps. your style also. but it's more about the build though. c) (this is also a science thing) if you can't look good or intimidating or want to bother with befriending girls, you need to have big dick energy and preferably treat to look cool or intimidating/masculine/badass with your style (that elevates your social status. hot girls only go from a physiologically standpoint for hot guys or guys with a high social status). if your average looking and your body isn't weirdly feable looking, your not fat, and your not short, that can be enough. if not you need to adding that need to have $$$$

if your an incel and your the kind of guy that wants to date out of his league take note. or else honestly it's just a personality issue probably

[Opinion Owner]

also by the way since i see so many people on here complain about this. the thing is from a biological standpoint women are hardwired to only want the best looking guys they can get for just sex (unless they're are already pretty themselves). guys aren't like that and will do anything that isn't abnormal looking (unless they're good looking). for dating it's the opposite, guys will try to get the best looking girl they can get and girls are stuck with whatever looks level they have in terms of guys. so they'll only be with guys that are about the same in looks. but because we care more about looks then biologically we would and have a beauty halo thing going on adding there's more chances to get with hotter people if people associate positive qualities with you or like you because it enhances how good looking your face is. this is not my opinion by the way, this is science. look this type of shit up if you want. also just want to add that scientifically speaking (this is for the incels and stuff like that who can't shut up about how western society is fucking up women and making them all go for the chads etc) that there are two phases of human sexual before. 1) just sex. the guys will fuck around and the girls two 2) you pick a partner and romance happens and you get kids. cycle start again or not if you stay commited. that's how it was in the caveman days and encoded in our dna. the degree of hotness or social status girls want in guys is different in those two cycles and depends in which league they are.

[Opinion Owner]

there are 4 leagues. first one is the extremely unattractive people (science wise below a 3.7 face wise) only fuck/date themselves regardless of social status of the guy. second is basically most people and the normal unattractive people, anyone from a 3.7 to a 5.5. the girls regardless of how the look will go for the guys if were talking only sex who are pushing the attractive threshold (scientifically you start to be ugly at a 5.1, real average from a 5.2-5.5, and at a 5.5+ you start to be attractive oh so slightly. your still technically average looking but that puts you in a different league). the top guys of that threshold for just sex will fuck as low as the 3.7s. that's because men are made to spread their sperm everywhere and there's no risk if you get an ugly girl pregant. because in the caveman days there was no way of knowing who the dad was since (scientists) believe everyone that wasn't in the monogamoust stage would fuck everyone that was in their league and not too old, so you wouldn't take care of the kid or be a dad to him so the genetic quality doesn't matter. for women though because they can get pregnant and well they will be a mom, the genitic quality is very important. so it's not a good deal to fuck an ugly guy, you want to fuck the hottest guy possible so you get the best genes. that's just for sex though. for dating though all the guys will compete for the best looking plain girls, and they will go for the guys who are also the top looking average average guys or the guys with highest social status that isn't high enough to land him with pretty girls. the girls who aren't as pretty will be stuck with guys the same level or with a low social status

[Opinion Owner]

the 3rd league is the slightly attractive people. so anyone from about a 5.5 to a 6.3 in science terms. for the guys it's the ones who look like that who dont have a high social status. dont remember if there's that same effect as for the average looking and unattractive people were girls try to fuck up or not, but i know if that's the case it shouldn't be as drastic. since that whole thing is to mainly avoid unattractive genes not average ones. also includes guys who are in normie or unattractive league who have a slightly high social status. for dating i know the guys dont compete really to get the prettiest girl as much. everyone in this league will not fuck or date anyone lower ever. they can fuck higher. for the fourth league, anyone solidely attractive in science terms (face 6.3-5+) there is no competition or hypergamy or anything. a 9/10 face wise will no problem fuck or date a 7. they can go a bit lower in the 3rd league for sex but not for dating unless they're are close to the borderline and with other borderlines. also includes guys with a high social status.

[Opinion Owner]

like i said earlier and increasingly (adding to the same effect that happens naturally with people that are in our biological leagues or of the same gender or too old/young for us to date if we judge they are good for our survival or in more modern terms good people or just that you like that) if you like someone even slightly it adds up a lot cause your looks aren't at all fixed. most people actually see you as hotter or less than you are depending on how they feel about you. anyways if you like someone just slightly it's like +0.3-0.6/10 points. if it's stronger than that but not strong strong, it's like around +0.7-1.2/10. if you really like someone (not romantically) can go up to +2 points. usually we see our bffs in the +1-2 points range. it can up more than 2.0 ish if for people your close to as you age (cause you subconsciously grow more and more attached) and if they're lacking. so this doesn't apply to everyone. but for your family members that aren't you parents or someone your in love with can go up to +3 points, your parents can go up to +4 (as well as your wife/husband). the opposite is also true but not as far. like if you got a shit personality incels, it will make you objectively uglier like as much as 1.2 points out of ten max. more commonly though 0.5-0.7 and that's a lot. if your pretty average your gonna look bad

[marish01]

Thank you for taking your time to type so many long replies. It's a whole essay lol. Incels complain that lower than average women still don't choose them. They want the hot men.

[KlinkyCoder]

If being incel isn't really a problem, then why are there a lot of frustrated men that have come to the conclusion that they are incel? Why do communities of them with more than thousands of members exist? If there wasn't a problem, I don't think the incel subculture would even exist.

[Deserter]

Most incels jut want someone in their league. You're delusional lol

[Taylor_C]

The only solution is to get rich. A rich man can be ugly as fuck, overweight, a misogynist and a general bastard, and he will still have an easy time finding women. Sad but true.

[marish01]

A hot misogynist can too

[Taylor_C]

He's not going to be hot if he's fat and ugly

[MCheetah]

Prostitution. This is the only correct answer.

The gym and plastic surgeries can't fix being short. Or "the wrong race." Or age. And even if the guy was six feet tall or over, it'd only attract the wrong kind of women, anyway.

Money and status will only attract gold diggers and simp hunters, and even gold diggers don't have to give a man sex, anymore. Really, B and F are the same options. B just gets a choice if they're spending their money on her or not.

We're still another 20-25 years away from decent sex bots. Maybe in 2045-2050.

Being gay wouldn't solve anything. That's not exactly an option, anyway.

And the people who voted G are just f*cking idiots and woke Progressives who don't have a clue. The Coach Anthony's of this site. Not to mention, misogynists and domestic abusers get with women all the f*ckin' time! What TF are you talkin' about?

So yeah, just get with an escort, clear your mind of sex, realize it's not that special, and move on with your life. At least a hooker is actually giving you something in return, unlike simps, who just give money to women for literally existing and nothing else. Most of you guys in dating end up simping, anyway. I'm all for legalizing prostitution everywhere in the West. At least it ain't OnlyFans! Hell, maybe it'd even kill OnlyFans and reduce the porn industry if it was legal!

[KlinkyCoder]

I think prostitution or realistic sex bots is the short-term solution because it doesn't address the problem that women have nonreciprocal standards and ideals.

[MCheetah]

@KlinkyCoder Yeah, but I doubt that's ever going to be fixed, so I've already fully accepted this species' slow march into extinction over the next 50-100 years due to the unchanging stubborn nature of hypergamy.

[KlinkyCoder]

Except for the possibility of social engineering.

[KlinkyCoder]

And I'm still concerned about it because of it could jeopardize my own dating prospects. I am afraid of becoming one of the 1/3 permanently single men. I guess the only thing they can hope for is just luck. Maybe you have gotten over it, but I couldn't imagine accepting being single and a virgin for the rest of my life, let alone a few years.

[MCheetah]

@marish01 Thanks for the unexpected Most Helpful, LOL!

[MCheetah]

@KlinkyCoder If you're not tall, or willing to be a simp/cuckold for a woman, then that one-third is your likely fate. Men can either change who they are for a woman just to kiss her butt, or live free being true to themselves, regardless if anyone else accepts them or not. I spent my whole 20s trying to fit into society's mold of "what a man should be" and was still too short, dark, ugly, and not-rich, to be accepted. I'm fine being myself and having freedom, as opposed to being with someone who doesn't accept me as I am. But it took me from 20 to 29, to get there.

[KlinkyCoder]

@MCheetah The thing is, men and women are designed to be with each other. You are just being forced and repressed against your own biology.

[MCheetah]

@KlinkyCoder Nah; men and women are just designed to have sex and reproduce. MANY men in history, if not most of them, did not get to have children or a loving partner. Usually, only the elite men and strongest, got to do that. Survival of the Fittest and whatnot. The only new addition to his fact of life, is that human men can cheat using money and wealth.

[KlinkyCoder]

@MCheetah Then maybe natural society is more brutal than I thought it was. I'm not religious, but I wonder why God would create nature and biology so women can more or less have a partner whenever and however they want, but men don't have that natural luxury. Talk about inequality of the sexes in the Bible.

[MCheetah]

@KlinkyCoder Well, I'm not religious, and speaking on a purely biological sense, humanity's only job is to reproduce. Have a kid and make sure that kid lasts long enough to have a kid of their own, and so forth. All this stuff about love, relationships, casual sex, etc, is all man-made, anyway. Not to say it doesn't hold value. But it's not part of the "natural world." Most animals don't "love each other." Even humans only do it out of convenience and brain chemicals. Again, love holds value, but it's not natural. Rape is more common (WAY more common) in the wild than "love" is.

[VanillaSalt]

McCheetah for president 2024! You got my vote!

[MCheetah]

@VanillaSalt Thanks.

[JamesDiaz11]

Stupid question- there would be fewer incels if women had realistic standards and quit all sleeping with the same men.

Let's assume guys did improve across all categories- women would still aim for the top 20%, perhaps even inventing new stats to figure out the top men (if looks, height, etc were equalized).

You know what's a hell of a lot easier to change? Easier than getting fitter, richer, taller, etc? Having the women who are average/ below average, only pretty with make up and filters put their standards in line with the average guy.

Across society we could also change hook up culture where people are permitted/ encourage to sleep with whoever they want, because again, the top guys (including myself) will be sleeping with all the women, and the bottom half of men will get nothing.

[sassy_receptor]

if they have high standards then they have high standards. they don’t owe you or any other guy shit and most of them want their standards met or they’re perfectly fine being alone. it’s so funny how that concept bothers men so much. the women don’t give a fuck how you feel😂

[marish01]

@sassy_receptor celibacy never kills

[sassy_receptor]

my standards aren’t the topic of discussion. i don’t even consider myself to have high standards but for the women who do, good for them.

[sassy_receptor]

dude we’ve done this before

[sassy_receptor]

last time you tried this charade i already told you i had a boyfriend. give it up.

[KostasKouvalis]

I agree with you 100%

[JamesDiaz11]

@sassy_receptor Even if that nonsense you said is true- if women are perfectly happy being alone for their life, or with the spawn of a hookup with a guy she couldn't lock down, getting old and having nobody to share her life with, it would still be adversely affecting the majority of guys, and either lead to the disintegration of the society when the population plummets, or will lead to men just turning you into the handmaidens tale. You think a majority of men are going to go without for their life, and not just turn you into sex slaves? Monogamy benefits women, because if men are not supplied with life partners (even if you believe the fantasy of women living happy single lives because they can't escape the delusion that they're entitled to high value men) they're gonna be raping and pillaging.

[sassy_receptor]

that’s why more women are buying guns more than ever. i don’t know a woman who doesn’t carry even at my age. fuck around and find out😊

[Part2603]

@ultimatesuicide Um, no... mathematical ability isn't something that men particularly look for... But color me intrigued... How much math have you studied?

[JamesDiaz11]

@sassy_receptor I've seen women in combat- you're not doing anything with those guns.

[PositiveFlight]

@JamesDiaz11 Are you suggesting that when society loses it completely that guys will turn and rape women? Just take what they need because women wouldn’t give? Do you think that’s right? I sure don’t! @sassy_receptor is right, women are getting guns right and left. In fact the AR-15 is becoming their firearm of choice due to its easy handling and great terminal effects. Women should be able to protect themselves when they feel the need. I think it’s wrong to underestimate a woman in battle. Your assigning that they are somehow incapable because it’s a she. Wrong. But even if so in some situations, guys such as myself who do have combat skills would not stand for other guys raping or harming women to any degree and you can bet we would protect all the women around us as our tribe and with our life if society gets to this point. Women and children will be everything worth protecting to good men who cherish womanhood/motherhood.

[JamesDiaz11]

@PositiveFlight I'm suggesting desperate men will act desperately toward what they need. If you starve a population they're gonna raid the food stores. Suggesting the "starving" should just die, and be as happy about it as the protagonist of 1984 is asinine. Wow, what a white knight you are- I'm calling bs. You've never been to combat. I've seen how women act in combat, e. g. the Lioness Program in Iraq 2006, and Army combat engineers in Iraq 2008- the second a few shots rang off/ mortars dropped these girls ran and hid. Funny thing is that before they disbanded the lioness program their female Lt. wrote herself up for a silver star, when I saw her under her cot behind hesco barriers. And the worst thing about your pathetic white knight-ing, is that you're disingenuous with it. You fully expect to be awarded with pussy and companionship, without empathy for the other men you'd damn to a life of celibacy and loneliness. I'm not an incel; I get laid plenty in this fallen world, but I can at least feel for these men, and I know they deserve better than this self-righteous condescension from women who would have no rights if it weren't for men.

[PositiveFlight]

You are making a lot of assumptions about a lot of different people. You assume I have no combat experience and yet you have no clue. You assume I’m looking to get something out of it. You assume I’m trying to be a white knight. And you assume that any women I wish to protect will not be grateful. First of all, there is nothing white night about being a decent human being. There is nothing white night about being a gentleman and protecting women and children as a man should and frankly has the responsibility to do. You are also assuming that I am against all men or have no empathy whatsoever. I have empathy for anyone who is a good person and trying their best in life. What I don’t have empathy for is disrespect for women by taking something from them that is not someone else’s to take. Regardless on if men are starved of sex or not, there is no excuse or valid reasoning behind raping a woman, ever. Such behavior towards women demand that any decent man should protect at all costs women and the vulnerable without expecting anything rewarding in return.

[PositiveFlight]

White knight* My damn iOS autocorrect

[JamesDiaz11]

@PositiveFlight why are women entitled to a man's protection. Does this entitlement go only one way. You're brainwashed with this "decent person" nonsense, which is exactly why I doubt you have any combat experience. You take way too much for granted, and assume when the chains of society come off people will make prescribed actions (e. g. "being a decent person").

[PositiveFlight]

@JamesDiaz11 I don’t assume society will do the right thing. I fully expect to have to use terminal force against bad people to preserve life, liberty, and property for myself and those around me. I live in the mountains and very much have the means to survive and fight off evil. You misunderstand my intentions. Do you think I’m somehow weak because I have a sense of decent and right, versus wrong and evil? Yes, I believe good women are entitled to protection and decency without any strings attached. I am religious and believe that God expects it because God expects gender roles of the strong to protect the innocent. And yes, I believe the good men are expected to be a warrior in the event that the vulnerable are being taken advantage of or that their very lives and safety are at stake. If a man won’t step up and protect the innocent around him, then what the hell is our purpose and what the hell are we even protecting in general? What is life’s purpose if you won’t stand for anything good? Do not assume or mistake my capabilities with my wanting to be a decent person and hoping that others will also be decent. God forbid there should ever be violence. But should violence or the threat be brought, I will end it on behalf of any good woman or her children if she has children!

[JamesDiaz11]

@PositiveFlight So, you're qualifying your protection as only extending to "good women?" How do you discern which woman is good? And again, you ignore that women have any responsibilities, or men are entitled to anything but chains and an "honorable death." If you're such a "God-fearing man" “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (Gen. 2:18)

[KlinkyCoder]

I think more accurate is "reciporical" and not so much "realistic". The issue is about the difference between the quantity of what women consider attractive vs. what men do.

[KlinkyCoder]

@JamesDiaz11 Sadly I heard a lot of people they say there is no more sex/sexuality in the afterlife.

[Asad1ONE1]

Bro the question asker is an incel herself. She's only fueling the narrative that incels are only male. Besides, the term INCEL was coined by a woman anyway.

[PositiveFlight]

I think in most cases, a guy just learning some basic respect and kindness goes a long way. When it comes to sex, treating her like a person and loving her, not as an object.

[marish01]

Lol even a slut wants love from casual sex?

[PositiveFlight]

I can’t speak for that arrangement. But I do know from talking to a lot of girls that the common thread is that they are more willing to be sexual when they know it actually means something. I think most people want to feel loved and not objectified

[DaveJord]

Why would you want to reduce the number of incels?

I think it makes for a better breeding population if they choose not to date. Definitely increases the odds for someone like me to find a better woman, without all these incels actually trying to become more desirable to women.

[marish01]

What about low quality women? Unfortunately they still date

[DaveJord]

Why would a quality women want to date an incel?

[VanillaSalt]

Lol we can just let them die out. Ugly women and sexless men will die out with enough time XD

[DaveJord]

@VanillaSalt 😆

[Sonorous]

I genuinely doubt that incels are as common as many would like to believe. Not by definition anyway. And I also think that if anyone says that "being an incel isn't only about not being able to have sex, it's about not being able to find longterm relationships," then they should Identify with something else. Because they're still not an incel by definition.

[DynamicKicker]

Wait what, simping is an option? That will actually work on girls? I could say sex bots or prostitution, and those are easy ways but that doesn't really count or fix anything for the guy in my eyes. I think they just need to improve the quality of their life. Work harder and care about their physical stature more. Even if they're not attractive, I think women will find value in a man's self-confidence and drive.

[Lionman95]

None of those. I think the only option is to help guys build up self confidence. Because a confident and self secure has less problems with being celibate than a guy that is insecure and it´s constantly watching porn or tries to be someone he´s not.
Many of the options you gave are sexual alternatives and I don´t see how homosexuality is a solution because if a guy doesn´t have feelings or doesn´t have sexual pleasure in fucking with another guy that´s not a solution to his original problem.
Money and status take time to develop and I would argue that you have develop a good self confidence before you can have those.
Simping should be no option because it´s no guarantee to get sex and it puts a guy in a depending position where chances are higher that he gets humiliated by her than what he actually wants.
The only option that works long-term is the last one but it´s also something that needs preparation.

[MCheetah]

Confident men can still be short, ugly, broke, and not getting any attention from women. Women don't care unless the guy is also attractive. I get you're saying that's the best life option. But as far as getting laid, like the question asks, I gotta disagree with you.

[Lionman95]

@MCheetah Thanks for the explanation you´re free to agree or disagree with me. I might have understood the question than intended since I looked at it from a long-term perspective. From my own point of view self-confidence is the fundament and I probably should have added that in many cases it´s just that.

[SnowedIn]

I selected A. I don't have a good empirical argument for why I think so, but it's a hunch.

[USLegionary]

Prostitution probably. The rest mean you still aren't having sex.

There are just guys that will never find a woman.

[ShadezMcgee]

Making prostitution legal would lower the incel rate. Just pay to get their nut and call it then. Get the sex out of their system with a bang and move on would help quicker, albeit at the cost of money and lack of true qualities that attract women overall.

[VanillaSalt]

I wonder how that would effect women if men just decided to pay for prostitutes instead of dating.

[ShadezMcgee]

@VanillaSalt would really affect the women that exploit OnlyFans or have those cash apps or whatever that expect to be treated like sugar babies. Why buy content when they can get the nut? That is who I imagine it would hurt most outside of women genuinely looking for a relationship

[VanillaSalt]

Will the benefit of paid sex curb the incel problem enough to makeup for monogamy being a commodity or will the loss of men giving a damn further propel these women down a spiral of self destruction. Women think if they hold the line men will meet them on their level but on one hand we have women holding out alone for decades refusing their desires for physical intimacy and children. On the other hand we have men that either have to level up or accept they will die alone. So men either have to be better or stop caring while women have to hold that line. I wonder who breaks first lol.

[Avicenna]

Legalized prostitution would eliminate incelism in a heartbeat

[HighValue]

If they can't get any, I guess getting a prostitute would be easiest. They probably cost cheap. Cheaper than a gym membership for long enough to get in shape. Plus if they have an ugly face it wouldn't matter much if they are in shape or not.

There are so many promiscuous women though, they must look pretty bad to not be able to get casual sex. I would think finding a compatible partner for a relationship would be much more difficult than to find someone for just sex.

[MCheetah]

An average escort is $200 an hour, and most "promiscuous women" are still shallow and think they're entitled to 10s, or did you forget about Hypergamy? 10% of the men get 90% of the women.

[VanillaSalt]

$200/hour? Where the hell are your prostitutes ours here in my area run an easy $400/hour…

[Part2603]

Women think EVERYTHING is misogyny. Women can't be infantry? Misogynist. Women are better at nurturing jobs like childcare and nursing? Misogynist. Don't want to marry a fat used up roastie? Misogynist!

[elizamichale1]

Maybe prostitution

[stratford]

Meditation

[magiusX26]

there is no big fix to the issue. partly since its not just guys that are the problem. the reality is its just about an everybody problem that requires about 10 billion different things to begin fixing.

[CloudMassacre]

Therapy

[Jennz6]

I picked C) but I’m still not really sure

[loveslongnails]

What makes you think that having sex with a machine COUNTS as real sex or makes you "not an incel". It that's your theory, it's no different than masturbating. You have to have sex with a human being to not be an incel, Marish.

[marish01]

I should have said erase the pain or stress of involuntary celibacy.

[loveslongnails]

I really believe "involuntary celibacy" is rare to begin with. It's a euphemism for men who are too lazy, too stupid or too apathetic to make themselves appealing to females. I don't care how high a standard some females set for marriage potentiates or relationships, there are plenty who want to "at least get laid", just like there are hordes of men like this. They're really not difficult to find.

[LiamJHayden]

So-called Incels are mostly that way because they tend to have absurdly high standards. We had one on here a couple of years ago. Guy worked a crappy job and was obese. He had no confidence, and always complained about how no beautiful women would date him. Well, of course not. What woman, beautiful or not, would want an unmotivated, negative, depressing boyfriend?

So if they lower their standards and avoid being so negative, most of them can get dates. For the rest there are always professionals.

[KostasKouvalis]

Option H, women lowering their standards.

[KostasKouvalis]

Why should WE have to change or resort to something like prostitution or sex robots. Put some responsibility on YOURSELVES. There wouldn't be so many incels if you girls weren't so demanding. That incel that shot couples said it good, "You girls never gave me a chance." This question is a little sexist in my opinion. Put some responsibility on yourselves.

[sassy_receptor]

women don’t owe men shit. better process that now.

[KostasKouvalis]

@sassy_receptor Stop complaining about incelism then

[sassy_receptor]

i never did because i don’t give a fuck. it’s funny watching men whine and complain.

[KostasKouvalis]

@sassy_receptor I shouldn't have to change to meet your ridiculous demands. Yeah, answer his question. Big dick! Big muscles, right?

[sassy_receptor]

be hot, have a good personality, and be consistent

[KostasKouvalis]

@sassy_receptor You'll have to be more specific

[sassy_receptor]

huh? i’m from california and all of my comments say that lmaooo

[sassy_receptor]

anyways be taller than me, have an aesthetic face, be white, have a slightly bigger than average penis, don’t be fat (dad bod means fat)

[KostasKouvalis]

@sassy_receptor That's reasonable. But what do you consider an "aesthetic face"?

[sassy_receptor]

someone with facial features that work for them. any face can be aesthetic if their facial features mesh well.

[sassy_receptor]

i have super reasonable standards and i don’t think they’re high. i know men and women with high standards though and i say good for them. no one should be bothered by people not accepting less than what they want. even with the standards i have, i’ll never lower them. a person is going to be what i want or it won’t work out.

[Chthou95]

@sassy_receptor Stop using yourself as the exception. We have to operate in generalities, not exceptions

[sassy_receptor]

when did i use myself as the exception by mentioning my standards? did you even read what i said?

[Chthou95]

@sassy_receptor You use yourself but how is that countering the claim that most women have high standards thst

[Chthou95]

That about 80% of men can't meet

[sassy_receptor]

what? i gave my standards because i was asked to give them

[Chthou95]

@sassy_receptor He shouldn't be asking you

[Chthou95]

@sassy_receptor It's irelevent

[sassy_receptor]

we’ll get mad at me not them. if you can’t meet a woman’s standards that’s a you problem.

[Chthou95]

@sassy_receptor It's not women's problem but sometimes it's not men's problems either. That's life

[marish01]

@sassy_receptor how attractive he should be 1-10 for you to date him?

[sassy_receptor]

@marish01 7+ in my eyes

[marish01]

@sassy_receptor that's not very high standards. Are you 7+ in your eyes?

[sassy_receptor]

i don’t have super high standards. and yeah i definitely am. @marish01

[KlinkyCoder]

I think the short-term solution is either prostitution or sex bots. Or possibly increasing the money and social status of average men, even artificially. Long-term we need to restore the traditional dynamics (especially strict monogamy) that prevented this issue in the first place. There would still be people taking advantage of polyamory and serial monogamy, but strict monogamy should be the one that's promoted.

And because an involuntary celibate man is lamenting not having a partner but wanting one, that doesn't mean anyone is misogynist. That is like saying people living in poverty and homeless are classist because they are lamenting their life circumstance.