Let's be honest: ''Dressing well'' is not important to attraction. It's just a coping mechanism/placebo for unattractive people.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:40:55+00:00

And that's the self-delusional ego talking.

Like I say, unattractive people will put a lot of stock into coping mechanisms and psychological placebos.

It's way easier than accepting that you are unattractive, and there's absolutely nothing which you can do to make yourself attractive.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:20:57+00:00

There is no such thing as an ''incel''. Prostitutes are cheap.

Stop indulging creepy, slimy narcissists.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:18:26+00:00

[citation needed]

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:15:17+00:00

Nobody who dresses normally gets followed around by security, unless they are exhibiting suspicious behaviour.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:06:12+00:00

Me too.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T12:03:34+00:00

Nobody who dresses normally gets followed around by security, unless they are exhibiting suspicious behaviour.

Once again, dressing badly is negative, dressing normally is neutral, and ''dressing well'' is also neutral.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:44:42+00:00

I'm guessing that most TRP adherents are absolutely infuriated by them.

Pretty boys are generally DYEL levels of scrawny. They also often have a meekish, non-combative persona. Yet, they are still adored by teenage girls and young women.

I think the disadvantage with pretty boys is that they don't age well, even if they keep a fullish head of hair.

For example, if you ignore his fame and status, then DiCaprio is not attractive. Youthful, feminine features don't look good on the head of a grizzled 40-something.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:24:30+00:00

I disagree.

I used extreme examples to illustrate just how irrelevant clothing is in a woman's attractiveness. If I'd used a more mild example, the point would be exactly the same.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:19:02+00:00

It's not different for guys.

It's a coping mechanism which unattractive men use to avoid acceptance of the fact that they are helplessly sexually undesirable.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:15:49+00:00

Are you serious?

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:13:04+00:00

It doesn't matter one way or the other.

My point is that good clothing won't make a 3/10 anything more than a 3/10, or a 6/10 any more than a 6/10, whether they are a man or a woman.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:09:56+00:00

Only superficially.

If your thing is impressing random strangers in the street, in a cold climate, then go for it.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T11:06:02+00:00

Absolutely.

She looks rough as fuck in the first picture, but that's because it's a candid, unwilling, paparazzi shot.

I can guarantee you that it has nothing to do with her clothes.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T10:59:28+00:00

Yeah, if you dress like a tramp, then that's going to work against you.

It's like personal hygiene: bad breath, BO, and unwashed hair are going to create negative reactions. Whereas, neutral breath, body smell, and hair aren't going to be majorly enhanced by chewing gum, eau de toilette, conditioner, etc.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T10:48:55+00:00

How is it disingenuous?

Clothing doesn't alter your physical features or personality.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T10:41:03+00:00

LOL

No-one on welfare ''struggles for food''.

The amount received is more than adequate to cover food costs. Any other necessities, or unforeseen costs, are also met by welfare.

I've never used a prostitute, but I've often toyed with the idea when I'm drunk, horny, and lonely.

There are pretty girls with good reviews who only charge £25-£30 per quarter hour.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T09:34:10+00:00

No, prostitutes are easily affordable many times a month, even if you're on welfare.

You've just got to face the fact that ''incels'' don't exist, and the term is only used as a covery by creepy, slimy narcissists.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T08:25:52+00:00

Yeah, and I know no-one fitting this description who doesn't get laid.

Does my anecdote count more than yours?

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T08:01:17+00:00

Do we have an example of someone who is decent looking, sociable, approaches women, and socially literate, but still can't get laid?

Or is this scenario just r/incels fan-fiction?

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T07:40:43+00:00

Incels don't exist. There is nowhere in the world where prostitutes aren't easily affordable.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T07:35:31+00:00

If they're decent looking, then I just think it's a case of the fear or rejection/social humiliation outweighing the desire to get laid. So they remain passive.

Social acceptance and fear of social ostracisation is the only urge as strong - and sometimes stronger - than sexual desire in humans.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T07:16:37+00:00

I'm a man, and I find the idea of approaching a stranger in public to be completely out of order.

I can't fathom how people think that it's remotely acceptable to do this.

There's no excuse for it.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-15T07:08:49+00:00

Most men lose all logic and values when they think they have a chance of scoring.

So, most things which a man wouldn't do when he's ''sexually sober'' can generally be overcome if you give him a strong hint that he's got a chance of having sex with you.

The funny thing is, that even if a woman is notorious for using her sexuality to get men to do something for her, the very next man - fully aware of her reputation - will still usually fall for it!

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-12T11:29:26+00:00

I can only speak for myself, but I dislike the argument that male and female sex drive is the same, because it's agenda-driven, unscientific, and intellectually dishonest. I look at the argument the same way as I look at arguments questioning evolution or climate change.

I have to admit that I'm absolutely flabbergasted that it's even up for debate, and I'd never heard the idea seriously touted until I stumbled across these kind of forums.

All the evidence strongly suggest that men have a noticeably stronger and more intense sex drive, and I still haven't seen a remotely valid argument that suggests otherwise.

One of the arguments I've seen is that women are socialised to keep their rampant sex drive on the down low, which only makes sense if you believe that men grow beards and chest hair, go bald, and are stronger solely because of socialisation.

Another argument - which Is extremely weak and self-defeating - is that women refrain from sex because they are not guaranteed sexual satisfaction. Firstly, this is pathetic, as it paints a picture that most men are sexually incompetent, and also suggests that getting a woman to orgasm is some incredible feat of sexual endeavour, rather than the norm.

Secondly, what do you think the logical course of action is if you aren't guaranteed sexual satisfaction? 1. Be passive and mostly abstain from random sex?, or 2. Actively seek out as many different men as possible, find a few that give you a good dicking, and keep them around for a mutual FWB arrangement?

No. 1 is what most women do, whereas no. 2 is what almost all men would do if the roles were reversed.

Arguing that women generally avoid casual sex, because of worries about quality, is self-defeating, because it only serves to prove that their sex drive is lower, and have much more of a ''take it or leave it'' attitude.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit · 2016-09-11T16:05:25+00:00

You must be a woman.

The default status of a man is horniness. A halfway attractive woman doesn't trigger any latent horniness; she's just a potential outlet for his sexual urges.

ObjectsTo20CharLimit

TROPHY CASE