Top products from r/Incels

We found 32 product mentions on r/Incels. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/Incels:

u/abusuru · 13 pointsr/Incels

Here's some blunt truth for yall. You are part of a marginalized community. Society won't treat you fairly or change during your life. Like anyone in a marginalized community, if you want to have the same things privileged people have, you have to be exceptional. Even if you do become exceptional and escape the marginalization you will not be given credit for how much you've overcome, instead you will be an example of how everyone like you is at fault for their problems. You will have to learn to create your own self worth because all your accomplishments will be seen as the bare minimum in the eyes of privileged people that had none of your challenges.

On the upside, it's worth it. Happiness is worth it, I promise. You have to have faith in that yourself because your journey will be very difficult and you'll need faith in what you're doing to motivate you.

As for practical advice about what to do, I would suggest that maybe the biggest gap I see around here is not physical attractiveness, it's emotional intelligence. That's also something everyone can improve if they care and practice. I recommend you read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Just-Listen-Discover-Getting-Absolutely/dp/0814436471 There's no easier way to get people to appreciate you and to ultimatley get them to do what you want than to truly listen to them. This book is about how you do that. I know the cliche is that all you do is listen to women, but if you're in this forum, I promise you don't really have this skill.

The other tip would be poker. Play live poker. Poker is a game of skill with hugely important life lessons that don't seem to be well learned around here. First, you have to find a game unless you live somewhere with a casino. Finding a hook up is a social challenge and learning to do it is an important social skill. Once you get to the table the game is fundamentally about making decisions and acting with confidence even when you have little to no information to guide your actions and the stakes are high. You also need to learn to read people so you get more information and can make better decision. Those skills of learning to read people and learning how to display emotions confidently that you might not actually feel are super vital to dealing with women and life in general. Gambling is addictive so be careful. Also, you won't learn a thing unless you're gambling an amount of money that matters to you. It absolutely shouldn't endanger your ability to pay the bills but it shouldn't be $1 either.

Good luck and I really hope someone here takes the advice in this thread and does something even though it's hard and even though you're likely to fail.

u/shitposter1000000 · 3 pointsr/Incels

>To find out how nurses distribute care among newborn babies with different levels of PA [physical attractiveness], researchers [...] studied the responses of eighty-five nursing students [...]. The researchers also sought to find out if nursing students' perceptions of infant attractiveness were affected by the wealth and social status of a baby’s parents, by the infant’s gender and health at birth, and by the student’s individual experience in the nursing field. After being shown photos of infants coded for physical attractiveness, the nursing students were asked to indicate how much time during a normal eight-hour shift they would spend with the infant in the photo and then with each of two other infants who were not described at all.

>The results: Nurses perceived an infant’s PA in relation to its gender and its health at birth. [...] The nursing students deemed smaller girl infants the most attractive, while the opposite was true for boy infants: The bulkiest and most muscular were perceived as more attractive and healthy. [...]

>[...] The [...] nursing students [...] said that they would spend more time with a normal-health-at-birth infant (median time: 250.67 minutes) than with a low-health-at-birth infant (median time: 197.50 minutes).

>Within minutes of birth, infants in most U.S. hospitals are subjected to a clinical assessment of their heart rate, muscle tone, respiratory effort, color, and reflex responsiveness. The results, collectively, are called the "Apgar" score. Crowder and Hunter [the researchers] concluded from their findings that infants with low health at birth and a low Apgar score got less nursing attention and nurturing time than those with normal health at birth and a normal Apgar score. They suspected that additional nurturing bestowed by nurses on the more physically attractive infants led to increased rates of weight gain, which resulted in shorter hospital stays. "Perhaps if 'at-risk' infants received a more nurturing environment, they would also have an increased rate of weight gain and a decreased length of time in the hospital," wrote the researchers.

This is a heavily shortened passage from the book Looks: Why They Matter More Than You Ever Imagined (which every incel should read) that shows you will be treated worse as an ugly person from t=0.

u/not_much_left · 3 pointsr/Incels

This is a really big topic and, judging by your post history, you're probably just asking sarcastically or trolling.

Having said that, here's two resources that might be good for others to read here as well.

  • Rosenthal's Human Sexuality textbook is a good overview for sexuality in general. The book I used in college was a "pre-print" loose-leaf version of this book, so it might have changed slightly since then. It's also pretty easy to find a PDF of this book, so, you know, might wanna google that noise.
  • The Case of the Female Orgasm. Slightly more casual read, it explores a hotly contested question in evolutionary biology. The reason I'm recommending this one is that it covers quite a bit of ground and has a great bibliography that will point you in a good direction for pretty much whatever topic you'd like in this category.
u/bignuggies · 4 pointsr/Incels

Well then, you'd be surprised to learn that child support and other safety nets for single mothers have nothing to do with the child and everything to do with how society views men as disposable, walking wallets which are "not essential to the raising of children beyond supplying a percentage of their paychecks to the mother of their children"

If it takes two to create a child, then why do an overwhelming majority of women win custody battles? If the money is for the child, then why does the money go directly into the hands of the mother?

The real answer to OPs question is this:

  1. Society and family court view men as non-essential in the raising of children beyond supplying money to the mother
  2. Society and family court still operate under the assumption that women do not have the same work opportunities as men (which is not even the case anymore today)

    I agree with you that it takes two people to make a child and that responsibility should be 50/50, however that is NOT reality, not even fucking close. Women have AN OVERWHELMING advantage when it comes to not only preventing pregnancy, but the options that they have after pregnancy, the options they have in divorce and family court. And why? "her body, her choice", the feminist agenda that has brainwashed society.

    "Her body, her choice", yeah her fucking choice alright, she chose to have sex as well.

    I would LOVE for you to read that 68 page article with its 350 sources to back up it's claims, but I doubt you'd be open minded enough. If you want to take the lazy way out, you could spend just two hours watching this, but maybe even that is asking too much.

    >Because you are responsible for paying for the life you created you gross fucking moron

    I'd love for you to say that to the faces of the tens of millions of fathers who've lost their custody battle, being denied the opportunity to care for their children
u/PorgiAmor · 7 pointsr/Incels

If this were true, you wouldn't see any macho behavior among Islamic men. But in reality their culture upholds the "macho" thing.

>Feminism implies female choice.....all of them, at the core of their beliefs, want women to have 100% choice over who their partners should be.

Yes, given that this is a basic human right.

>In a patriarchy, where we have arranged marriage and men don't have to compete in mating rituals like some sort of uncivilized monkey, men don't have to worry about being a machismo alpha male and instead can just be themselves.

Except in patriarchal cultures, men still compete for women. Typically the more powerful and alpha men in arranged marriages didn't stay faithful to their one wife. They married a woman for political reasons, but still chased after other women they wanted as mistresses (sometimes even after those women were married off to other men).

So no, men would still compete for women even with no-choice forced arranged marriages. And actually, even taking women out of the equation, men will always vie for each other for other reasons too: wealth, power, position, status.

Really, I'd suggest getting a bit more well-versed in European history. Especially given how pro-European you are, you ought to know your own people's history. I think you might benefit greatly from taking a history course if you're still in college. Or just read some books about prior European eras where romantic customs and marriage patterns were different. This one is particularly enlightening.

u/tirmanadir · 3 pointsr/Incels

https://www.scienceabc.com/social-science/why-do-we-crave-sugar.html

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Obesity-Michael-L-Power/dp/0801892627

could just google it too

>We eat whatever tastes good to us and unhealthy food is tastier to most people

And why do you think it's tastier?

>I can eat a bag of baby carrots in a sitting

Oh boy, a whole bag. And yet 1 trip to McDonalds and you wolf down far more calories than there were in that entire bag.

>Even healthy food provides calories and if you don't use them guess what happens.

That's relevant, how?

>Don't tell me I need to learn what evolution is when you're just now deciding to change your wording.

I didn't change shit. In the comment you were replying to I was clearly talking about evolution and said the word "evolved" in the same fucking sentence.

>What the fuck do you mean "evolutionarily adapted"?

Our fucking instincts still act as if we're running around naked in the Savannah. Alright, I'll give you an example. Why does sex feel good? Why do we get horny and then get such a great feeling when we orgasm? Because it encourages us to reproduce. And yet, we orgasm and feel great even when using a condom. We consciously know that no reproduction is taking place, but your subconscious thinks you are and gives your dopamine receptors a little pat on the back.

u/SmileAndDonate · 2 pointsr/Incels


Info | Details
----|-------
Amazon Product | Call OF Duty Black Ops II Mens T-Shirt - Solider in Light & Shadow Image (Extra Large) Black
>Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases to the charitable organization of your choice. By using the link above you get to support a chairty and help keep this bot running through affiliate programs all at zero cost to you.

u/CoffersWorthington · 2 pointsr/Incels

There's a disconnect between what women SAY they like, and what actually gets the panties wet. This is backed up by clinicians and theoreticians (even the feminists). See references:

https://www.amazon.com/Lacanian-Subject-Bruce-Fink/dp/0691015899

https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Sexual-Difference-Luce-Irigaray/dp/0801481457/

Despite all these factors you say, maybe it's something small that actually turns you on. Say, the impertinent, unblinking way a certain guy looks at other girls.

Everything else comes into play when you're selecting a long-term mate, but I'm just talking about that visceral attraction.

u/fschmidt · 1 pointr/Incels

You asked about the Old Testament, not about Judaism/Talmud. Yes, Islam is closer to Judaism than to Christianity. The Talmud is all about legal reasoning. But the Old Testament isn't. Most religions translate "torah" as law, but this is wrong. "Torah" is teaching, and the Old Testament is basically a book on ethics, not law. The laws (plural) are only there as illustrations of applying ethics to particular situations.

If you are interested in religion, here are some books I like:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0096BCVPG/

http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Thousand-Political-ebook/dp/B00GGOEL4A/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005FLQE86

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DPCXW28

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002GJGIDQ/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226702812/

u/InertGasAsphyxiation · 4 pointsr/Incels

Rust was such a great character. The guy who wrote True Detective stole a bunch of shit from this book, some of Rust's dialogue is pulled from it literally word for word. That's probably why season 2 was so shitty. The book is a really good read though.

u/famele · 1 pointr/Incels

You created the association that you HAVE to have breast to be a woman. Having small breast doesn't make you any less a woman. Here's a really cool book for you read to find out more: https://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Physiology-Dummies-Maggie-Norris/dp/0470923261

u/LibStealingSpic · 1 pointr/Incels

I remember reading this i started reading a chapter it started with sex and i grabbed the book, threw it against the wall and said "shit", it took some seconds to realize what happened and what i did.

u/Flaming_Bear_vagina · 1 pointr/Incels

No, a couple evolutionary psychologists agree with your opinion, not the entire field. Specifically, it's pushed by Mark Van Vugt. A dissenting opinion from the field:

> The warrior hypothesis assumes there was constant warfare in our evolutionary past, but some anthropologists argue that ancestral populations were too sparse for frequent contact. It also presupposes that warfare increases male fertility, when it may actually reduce fertility for all. Fertility is probably maximized when men are non-violent and share in childcare, but in many societies men beat their wives, neglect their children, and practice sex-selective infanticide against girls. The authors perpetuate the myth that evolution prefers men to be polygamous and females to be monogamous, but we see every variation in other species. In chimpanzees, both sexes seek multiple partners.

Further:

> the authors claim that men are biologically programmed to form coalitions that aggress against neighbors, and they do so in order to get women, either through force or by procuring resources that would make them more desirable. The male warrior hypothesis is alluring because it makes sense of male violence, but it is based on a dubious interpretation of the science. In my new book, I point out that such evolutionary explanations of behavior are often worse than competing historical explanations. The same is true in this case. There are simpler historical explanations of male violence, and understanding these is important for coping with the problem.

Emphasis added. The 'authors' referred to in the first sentence include Van Vugt, and the work is consistently called to question by much more senior members of the field. Also, if you're interested, the new book referenced is this one.

You're not going to care, I just want you to know that this is not what the entire field is like. Much the opposite. Due to the nature of studying it (it's almost purely theoretical) dissent is rampant, and just because someone has a hypothesis, does not mean it's automatically dogma. The mere existence of an idea is not validation that it's correct.