Incel/chad analysis and statistics...is Nature rigged?

Socialization
#1

Hippies…when they say the word “Nature”, I don’t think it means what they think it means…

Nature is the cold artic tundra, the desert, some mosquito infested place. When hippies say “I love Nature” I think what they mean is, “I like the temperate forest vibes”.

Nature is very rigged against all males. For instance a Chad will get rejected by 80% of women, is viewed as chad because is adored by 20% of women. An incel will get rejected by 99% or 100% of women. Therefore, chads have low self esteem and are crazy, even if successful. Incels have lower self esteem and are more crazy.

None of this proves NAWALT. Because average = incel. Because lets say 25% or 50% of women are good. This means the top tier men are going to immediately date all the NAWALT women, therefore the only women left seem like AWALT women. This is what I mean by the incel/chad analysis and stastics. Therefore incels will start to assume that AWALT since all the 25% or 50% of women are already dating other males.

In Nature this is how it is, the average animal male in nature is rejected by 98% of women, is considered success by only 2% win ratio. Some men are made out of clay, and accept this notion that’s hammered into them by the world. Others are actually human and don’t think males should have to endure 98% failure ratio just because thats the way things have always been and almighty Mother Nature.

image
Mother brain or Mother nature?

Also, the 98% number is based on original nature, the number has gotten worse with city life, since it means you have to compete with more males, it has become more like 99.9999% thats why I said “average=incel”.


There is a flaw with this video, he says there is no “true self”. There is, when you were a child and more pure, before corrupted by rejection, that is your true self. I don’t think its right that human males have to constantly reincarnate into worlds where they receive a 98% rejection ratio just for the sake of appeasing to Nature and (supposed) evolutionary advancement.

1 Like
#2

imho

nature was split on incels

foragers were monogamous and thus had lower inceldom than polygynous villagers
any small polyandrous societies also had fewer inceldom

the degree to which nature was worse than today was the lack or resources, not the presence of freedom per se.

#3

all i know is 8000 years ago 95% of men were incels.

i dont know about ancient foragers, do you have evidence they were monogamous?

mathematically speaking, it seems like monogamy would reduce incel, here is why.
it is a bit like an optical illusions or one of those weird parlor tricks that doesnt mathematically make sense at first, but then makes sense.
imagine a chad who fucks 1 girl every day of the week. He has 7 girlfriends. So each of the girls get sex 1 day of the week but chad gets sex 7 days a week. The girls are happy because they have less sex drive, and also because female existence is inherently more happy than male existence. So a female is perfectly happy and content waiting 6 days for chad harem. Women are also naturally lesbian so they can have sex with the 6 other girls while she is waiting also.
Therefore polygamy results in most women and chad being satisfied but most males being miserable. On the other hand, polyandry does not work as well, since males have more sex drive and are not as comfortable being gay, at most the males could play smash bros with each other for 6 days but I suspect they would feel insecurity and frustration, being afraid of hypergamy and one male getting all the sex while the other 6 fade into obscurity. So monogamy has the added parodox of being parodoxically pro male but also anti male, since having low sex drive goes against male nature of trying to reproduce as much as possible. Therefore nature is definitively a broken machine when measured of its own accord.

#4

the evidence is out there

#5

Not really, monogamy makes perfect sense in terms of its reduction or even near elimination of incel, at face value.

If you force a 1:1 ratio, the choice for a female no longer becomes Chad or normie or incel (obvious choice every time, Chad). The choice then becomes either whoever is the equivalent male (Stacy -> Chad, Becky -> Norman, Low tier female -> Incel) or literally zero sex and never reproducing either. This makes it difficult for them to reject their looksmatches because the only alternative is being shunned and alone.

#6

the illusion i was referring to was how girls seem more content with chad harem than monogamy, and how girls dont feel incel

#7

that sucked for men too though cuz men got violently forced into relationships they didn’t want

think polynadry (not polygny) + monogamy would work better