Man, looks like /r/braincels is leaking

I do! Thanks, I'm proud of my reading skills. Also, it would be nice to see some sources for the wild claims you make in this post, don't you think?

Thinking that the nuclear family is the best framework for a family is equal to being an incel

2018 everyone!

No, saying shit like "soy boy" and "beta male" and thinking everyone's gotta have sex necessarily and women can't ever hook up outside a relationship makes you an incel. It's like you didn't even read the post.

lol I dunno whether to engage or laugh quietly to myself. Here I'll let him do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU Also your alpha beta mindset shit is toxic garbage outdated long ago by the very man who introduced the idea https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-myth-of-the-alpha-male-hesaid/ http://www.davemech.org/news.html

Here's a quote "Outmoded notion of the alpha wolf The concept of the alpha wolf is well ingrained in the popular wolf literature at least partly because of my book "The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species," written in 1968, published in 1970, republished in paperback in 1981, and currently still in print, despite my numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it. Although most of the book's info is still accurate, much is outdated. We have learned more about wolves in the last 40 years then in all of previous history.

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. "Alpha" implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that's all we call them today, the "breeding male," "breeding female," or "male parent," "female parent," or the "adult male" or "adult female." In the rare packs that include more than one breeding animal, the "dominant breeder" can be called that, and any breeding daughter can be called a "subordinate breeder."

Because we should't behave like captive animals, nor should they be a basis for what we believe about the world, seeing as how their captivity is an inherently unnatural and stressful situation for them. If you identify with caged bulls more than a free animal, I feel for you, Society is a tight shackle

I think you just got triggered tbh

There's a message contained in this post you know

Yeah, a message layered under 1000 layers of incelism and sex entitlement. Re-read it critically and you'll see. Also, no sources whatsoever on some of the wild claims (no sex lowers testosterone and masturbation doesn't help increase it, etc etc). Basically a self-serving rant, no idea why it's even on this sub really.

I've seen the stats talked about in the post, I know they exist and like he said, you can look for them

If you want video format presentations, go watch Stefan Molyneux or something

It really just makes folks look so foolish when they make claims without backing them up. It's east to say something and then shift the onus onto some else to do the work to provide evidence. I check out this sub to find realistic, fact-based presentations, not the ravings of someone who sits on a high horse judging others. Posts like these really bring down the quality around here.

A-fucking-plus, my friend. As someone wiser than me said, any claim that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Lmao, who's the authority? You're reading whatever the fuck you want out of my comments at this point. I restate though, the burden of proof is on you, not me, though I'll see to redact something once I get off mobile.

Uuhhh, no. Not when you are making broad claims.

Hey guys, the sky is red! What, you don't believe me? Then get your own proof, damnit! You don't like my logic, too bad. You should just take my word for it.

You show me yours and Ill show you mine. Oh wait, we have to be virgins. Never mind.

Good job at kicking an ant hill. At least you have folks talking. Too bad it's about the poor quality.

That's not true now is it

I showed him mine but I don't think he's gonna show his back... Did I get bamboozled? :(

Well done! But careful, I really don't think he's looking for a conversation. Based on his responses to me, I fully expect him to just brush science off.

Testosterone is affected by having sex. Are you in denial?

So do you have anything to back any of this up? That smarter animals are monogamous, testosterone is lower, progressives encourage slut culture, more dudes are having less sex, or are you just pissed you can’t get laid? Also, how would sex raise testosterone but masturbation lowers it?

The one stat I see which you’ve failed to cite is about so many people used to be married by age 22. Is that a good thing? Why?

You realize being promiscuous when you’re young doesn’t preclude you from settling down and having a stable family later in life?

Stop using the word "slut"

There's my advice.

I'm not censoring you. I'm giving advice. Same as you are.

If I was to run around deleting your posts you might have a point.

Try to relax.

I have to laugh a bit at this. Here you are telling someone not to censor people verbally, and yet here you are proclaiming folks shouldn't do a certain action. A bit contradictory, no?

"Don't tell me what not to say, but I'll tell you what not to do!"

Everything you are asking for is very easy to fact check

Then you should have no problem providing sources. You're the one making the claims, back them up.

It's pretty easy to look up marriage statics over the twentieth century.

Didn't answer my question. I don't care about the accuracy of the number as much as it's relevance. Who cares that 70 years ago people got married by 22? Was that better? Why?

The pathways in the brain that are created by a promiscuous sex lifestyle

Such as? What exact connections is your brain making because you're having sex? How would it know the difference between promiscuous and monogamous relationships and sexual encounters?

statistically shown that divorce rates go up the more partners you have.

Love to see that study.

I made all this up so now I’m shifting the burden into you.

I believe safe promiscuity is ok. Safe as in no diseases, no babies.

At the same time, I myself am traditional when it comes to monogamous relationships. I love them. I think it's better for everyone involved especially for the children.

But in a culture that has no problem with lies how is this a possibility. So few people even know their infected until they have already passed on their disease a few times...

That's why it's the individual's responsibility to take care of their own body. I wouldn't do it raw with a random chick, that's insane. I a big advocate of birth control, rubbers and oral-sex dental dams. It's up to each person to be as safe as possible.

This. I wasn't as happy as I am now when I was single and living the "hookup" lifestyle.

I'm sure that has to do a lot with growing up and maturing as well, but sometimes, the traditional is best and I agree with you there.

I might disagree with you on many many things but this is spot on lol

I'm a weird breed Ray.

Sometimes I'm a raging dick, sometimes I make sense. Can't help it.

I so respect folks who are traditional, but still ok with other peoples choices. Keep on keeping on! :)

Of course they are. Marriage has been around for thousands of years as it has been recognized for its role in stabilizing society. The left just wants to tear it down without even investigating why it was instituted in the first place. Why do you think there is such an effort to demonize and tear apart the nuclear family? Tear the family apart, then the government gets the raise the kids. Full indoctrination achieved.

The "left" isn't trying to break apart or demonize the nuclear family wtf, if anything many of us try and say that you don't have to be in/start one if you don't want to. Domt want to have kids? Cool. You're gay/lesbian/bisexual and want to adopt, go ahead. You want to stay single for your whole life? Sure.

Meanwhile the current conservative president has had like 3 wives and has cheated plenty of times, including when his wife was pregnant. Now that's some good ol Traditional Values for ya!

Que? Of course you can adopt without destroying a biological family, in what situations are you destroying a family when you adopt?

Not always but that's not even the point lol. If I was kid with fucked up parents that had to give me away, I wouldn't care who adopted me, gay or lesbian, as long as it was a good home

Wow, this is written as if a woman has no choice in the matter at all! Perhaps it's because men who view woman as cattle that are to be rounded up for a bull are viewed as assholes, and women just don't sleep with them. I was confused here also about all the issues mashed togther here. Show me stats on the following, and we can have a reasonable discussion- sexual partners in relation to monogamous relationship both long and short term, happiness and longevity of monogamous relationships in relation to sexual partners, womans choice since 1940,

I with I had the time to rewrite this from a female perspective and show just how truly one-sided this perspective is.

Also, the idea that any genetic material from the strongest individuals is important is a bygone idea now for humans. When there are no longer essential environmental pressures making it important for strong key genes to be passed on, it's become a crap shoot. It's a moot point now in relation to environmental evolution.

Arranged marriged are as pretty close as you are gonna find these days to virgins marrying virgins, and, surprise surprise, I don't think that the man is expected to be a virgin. Reassess that relationship in 1,3,5 and 10 years and tell me just how happy they are.

You are pretty much saying, overall, that anyone who has more than one partner is contributing to societal downfall.

Find someone you love? 100% yes. Be open and honest and work out a situation that works for you? 100% yes. Anything else won't stand the test of time or emotions. Do you honestly expect folks to just wake up tomorrow morning and be honest with themselves about how they feel then come clean with the world? Because if they don't love the person they are with but slept with already, oh no! Now they break up, and are contributing to slut culture by having to find someone else.

Tell me also, if sex is so important to you, and the person you find yourself with has zero chemistry in the sack, will you be happy in a week? A month? A year? Ten? But you can't leave, because that's contributing to slut culture, and Lord forbid you have a mature conversation that ends in someone having their sexual needs filled elsewhere because that's no longer monogamy.

Nope

WTF? What does that have to do with anything? Please, enlighten me to any assumptions you are making here.

Have you ever been in a successful long term relationship? Talked specifically about this with people who have managed 50, 60, even 70years+ of marriage?

If so you should know very well there is no such thing as love at first sight. Attraction, infatuation, absolutely. But not love.

Love takes effort, it has to be nurtured and grown. It involves lots and lots of compromise and communication.

You do not know a person at first sight, this is not debatable. You cannot truly love someone you do not know.

Oh go fuck a beehive.

Everybody wins.

Love at first sight is based on appearance. Is that all that matters to you, how a person looks?

Society takes sacrifice. People don't get that. The War on the family unit has been going on for some time now. The Devil whispers in your ear, do what you want, why sacrifice? Why for the greater good, that is why.

This is proper crazy-level phallocentricism

I read the contents of your post, but it seems to me that you’re talking about one mate for life and not necessarily monogamy, which are two separate things. I believe it’s imperative to be monogamous with your partner. I also believe it’s fine (preferable) to have multiple monogamous relationships throughout one’s life. Relationship dynamics are not things that can be taught and must be learnt through experience as everyone deals with situations differently. This is more to learn about yourself rather than your partners. That’s my opinion.

inb4 'hurr durr incels'

the institution of monogamy is being eroded at a very steady rate, it might be by design, it might not be.

Monogamous relationships can be observed in nature and many times they are observed in the species with extremely high "intelligence" for example, swans, grey wolves, and gibbon apes. Animals with low intelligence such as fish, and cattle mate promiscuously.

Yes, swans - the Einsteins of the animal kingdom.

Jesus dude at least try starting with a true statement. There's no link between intelligence and monogamy in animals. Monogamy does sometimes happen in animals, but even socially monogamous species are actually genetically promiscuous (they cheat on their spouses). Fish, who are dumb as shit, are frequently monogamous.

Here's some animals noted for their intelligence - Dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees and bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, squid and octopi. None are monogamous.

In the future, if you want to use an animal to support your baseless argument, use crows instead of swans.

Well, you asked for a thought-out response and here it is. I'll start off by saying the first paragraph is a very stupid comparison.

One might argue that if a alpha male mates with 20 females much more of their genetic material will spread, this is true but the "apha" genes are dominating the male expression and the ratio of male to female genetic transmission shifts drastically.

This is meaningless. First of all, there's a mix of male and female genes for offspring, there's no "alpha" genes and male to female genetic transmition, whatever that is, and what exactly is behavioral problems in the offspring? Surely you don't mean that anti-trans bullshit...

But, many men in this society are alienated like the beta bulls in any herd they will never pass on their genetic material. In a promiscuous society hookup culture dominates and traditional relationships are replaced. This actually leads to far fewer men having sex on average compared to the 1940's when 80% were married by 22.

Spoken like a true incel. There's no more alienating in society than there ever was, it's called natural selection and there have always been people who didn't get laid or passed down their genes. This illusion of the alpha Chad is just stupid. Also, are you suggesting women marry guys they don't like just for the sake of having children? Excellent points you make.

Whereas masturbation saps testosterone and stifles the production of testosterone.

This is actively false. "In multiple human and animal studies, it has been noted that ejaculation does not acutely change serum testosterone levels, busting the common myth that ejaculation would rapidly deplete the body from testosterone." Sex does, indeed, increase your testosterone. But saying that "the men who are weak and effeminate stay soy boys because their body's are not primed for producing testosterone" is just unbased discriminatory bullshit. And then you proceed to mention lifting, which is what is always suggested to incels... haha

the endorphins and hormones realised during sex are much more important to self actualization

Continuing with the unbased bullshit. I've searched a bit and the hormones released during sex are all regular hormones you can get through other means (also like endorphins, released during sex but also... while laughing). Nothing about "self realization" to be seen but the projection is nice. Also, on the whole homosexual rats thing, which isn't a particularly fructiferous google search, I only found this study which does indeed talk about increased rate of homosexuality on rats... via Pavlovian conditioning post-birth. They even state the conditioning is much more inducing than any genetic traits. Also, I'm not arguing on anything Alex Jones, if that's your definition of a source I don't know what to tell you.

The vast majority of homosexual men are in fact quite alpha. It is the vocal femme few we see elevated to the image of "gay" man.

Do you re-read what you type? What does "quite alpha" even mean, isn't an alpha a dominant guy that bangs all the chicks? Are you complaining gay men are taking... all the men? Also, nice lack of source on the whole human genome expression;

It is the massive populations in cities that is the cause of a higher rate of homosexual men. The human genome is reacting to what it sees as a threat to its future existence

Pretty safe to say this is unbased horseshit. This study on gay/straight twins concludes that genetic differences might be caused by "differences in their exact locations within the womb and how much of the maternal blood supply each [son] receives". Nowhere does it mention population size, and how exactly would the genome know? Beyond my simple brain, at least. This other study also links sexual orientation to differences in libido between individuals, and yet again - no population factor is involved. And then we get to the STI part;

Sexually transmitted diseases can only exist in a culture of promiscuity.

This is factually incorrect and/or doesn't correlate with your previous "slut culture" story. A quick glance at [Wikipedia]() shows that "The first well-recorded European outbreak of what is now known as syphilis occurred in 1494 when it broke out among French troops besieging Naples in the Italian War of 1494–98". Also, the first medical center for venereal diseases was founded in early 1746. So, has promiscuity culture come to be only recently, or has it been around since the XV century?

If every person mated for life the only stds would be from rape or a promiscuous underclass that went around the hypothetical societal norm.

Again with the forced marriages side-suggestion. First off, some STIs like AIDS can (without proper care, granted) be passed down to offspring, so this would not be 100% effective, not to mention falling outs/divorces/relationship breakups which are what has kept STIs around for centuries already. Or are you suggesting couples don't ever break up, and single people don't ever have sex until marriage and with only one person in their lifetime? No thanks, for me at least. I'm sure it's a great deal for incels though.

Could we argue that promiscuity was demonized not because of prude religious morals but because the ancients knew the dangers of such behavior to a society's collective gnome.

No, we couldn't, because "ancient" knowledge of STIs was literally non-existant and very ill-informed at best. As per the previous Wikipedia article; "Prior to the invention of modern medicines, sexually transmitted diseases were generally incurable, and treatment was limited to treating the symptoms of the disease". So no, people in ole medieval towns weren't being monogamous for fear and knowledge of the dangers of STIs, more like they were arrange marriaged without any say whatsoever. From the article: "Women didn't have a choice as to who they would marry and, most of the time, women didn't even know the man before they wed. However, men were sometimes able to choose their bride. Marriage back then was not based on love; most marriages were political arrangements. Husbands and wives were generally strangers until they first met." Again, no thanks, but it does sound suspiciously like an incel wet dream. After medieval times, Victorian morality gained dominance through Europe and much of the world, which encouraged people to be prude and conforming of their relationships.

For yourself and for society, find someone and love them. Love them good. And love them for a lifetime.

Why do you think having multiple sexual partners and settling down are polar opposites? It's like you think you can't possibly have sex out of a commited, life-long relationship, which damn near nobody even has before their 30s. I know I wouldn't want to marry at 20, and certainly wouldn't want to be forced to wait for sex until my 30s or until my parents pick a girl for me. Also;

If we fall in to the trap of promiscuous sex we will collectively destroy modern medicine and the effectiveness of antibiotics

What does even mean? What part of modern medicine are you trying to destroy? Certainly not things like abortions, safe sex measures, or other surely meaningless stuff like cancer or alzheimers research...? And a non-existent link between antibiotics and promiscuous sex which doesn't exist. Do guys who bang lots of chicks take cold medicine more often? Or are you talking specifically about STI-treating medicine, which has actively reduced the number of STI-related casualties in the last 60 or so years to an almost non-existant minimum?

We must secure a healthy society through long lasting healthy monogamous relationships. We can end sexually transmitted diseases in one generation if every virgin picked one virgin to be with for life.

Aaaand now you're not even being cautious about the incel shit. Again, I don't really know how to tell you that most people aren't ready to choose a life partner at 18, but you should know that. This sounds like a government-tells-you-who-to-mate-with kinda dystopia off a fantasy book. It's not that there's no truth to your statement, only that everything you support goes against basic aspects of human behavior. Kinda like saying "if you kill all disabled people in a society, there will certainly be next to no disabled people in a single generation jump", which din't exactly go well for the Nazis.

Ah, writing all this felt good. It's nice to call someone out, have them not provide proof of their claims and have you provide them instead. But hey, I'm sure /r/braincels will take you back.

You know that guy isn't going to read or reply to this. This creepy dude sounds like he would get turned down by a fleshlight.

Oh, I knew he wasn't going for a serious discussion the moment he refused to back up any of his claims. I still felt the need to address his bullshit though.

this is so gay

Yeah, a message layered under 1000 layers of incelism and sex entitlement. Re-read it critically and you'll see. Also, no sources whatsoever on some of the wild claims (no sex lowers testosterone and masturbation doesn't help increase it, etc etc). Basically a self-serving rant, no idea why it's even on this sub really.

Not always but that's not even the point lol. If I was kid with fucked up parents that had to give me away, I wouldn't care who adopted me, gay or lesbian, as long as it was a good home