|
|
|
|
|
by gridlockd
2123 days ago
|
|
I'm actually not so much interested in the incel identity, but in the biological reality of sexual reproduction and mate choice including (but not limited to) Homo Sapiens - as opposed to the fantasies that a given Homo Sapiens might harbor in favor of that reality. To that end, I would count an incel not as "someone who can't have sex" but someone fertile who involuntarily fails to sexually reproduce. Research suggests that historically, the ratio of females to males that reproduced is 1.1 (Asia) to 1.4 (West Africa)[1]. Of course that doesn't prove all of these male individuals were incels, but we're not a naturally monogamous species, so you would have to explain why a female would not choose only the best males for reproduction and ignore the rest. Many (if not most) societies have historically suppressed female mate choice, likely as a measure for maintaining social order. This would suggest that as females are able to be more picky, the number of incels should rise. I believe that's exactly what we can observe right now in affluent western societies: Women have been financially independent from males for decades, and now that online dating shows women the abundance of mate choices they never knew they had, less attractive males suddenly appear much less desirable. Consequently, the threshold for successful reproduction rises. [1] https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(10)00033-9.pdf |
|