@Saney asked me to do this. He wanted someone to pick apart Moo's arguments so I might as well since it's pretty easy.
To preface. I'm a single straight white guy who has social anxiety. I just don't whine online about things I can control.
All of this is also addressed to any loveshies who visit the board, not strictly to Moo.
The trend tends to be that the incels are more sex focused and the love-shies more relationship focused. LS is an engrained fear that your sexuality will be seen as shameful, so typically they're sensitive to the emotional state of others, with a slightly unhealthy desire for approval. They also tend to romanticise things.
So essentially you're admitting being an Incel/Loveshy is rooted in some form of delusion and isn't rational. If that's the case then they should go and see a therapist, not whine online.
The "pure" incels as we call them don't have any anxiety per se, and the love-shies would require a form of therapy that is not available. For a love-shy to improve, they'd need exposure to situations that convince them that others won't find their sexuality or romantic intentions disgusting.
This implies being a loveshy is born out of naivete. Which I'm inclined to agree with. And as we all know being naive just means lacking experience.
There's nothing wrong with lacking experience. But the rational mind decides to solve this problem by gaining experience because whining about it goes nowhere.
Personally, I am LS enough that I've never asked out a girl in person before, and if a girl showed signs of interest I couldn't act on them, because the signs were subtle enough that I wasn't completely sure of them. But if a girl had just asked me out, I could have said "yes" ok. So, for a lot of the milder cases of LS, they don't even "need" treated as such, if girls would just be slightly more accommodating. Most girls assume all guys are sexually aggressive and will actively pursue a subtle hint of interest. If he doesn't, he musn't be attracted.
You just went full retard here.
First, you admitted you were a loveshy in a thread about making fun of loveshies that's 200 pages long. This is extremely foolish because all we will do here is laugh at you.
Secondly. it really isn't that hard to ask a girl out. There's hundreds of ways to do it and hundreds more on how to make yourself feel comfortable enough to do it. The way I managed to get around to talking to women was just by striking a conversation with random women I knew or didn't know. As I got more comfortable I was more willing to ask them more personal topics and they would become more receptive.
This is called "making friends". You can do this with guys too, it's not hard. It's just with women there's additional steps after inviting them places.
And no, not all girls assume all guys are sexually aggressive. For one not all girls are attracted to guys that are sexually aggressive, there women who prefer to be dominant sexually. There are communities filled with them and products marketed to them. Secondly stop expecting the girl to do the work, that's not how our society works. Women get hit on near constantly, they don't need to ask some dweeby guy out. You need to court her, the job of attracting someone else is yours not hers.
It's that stereotype and gender role that girls are so comfortable with maintaining that makes things harder for us than it needs to be. I've had girls cry to their friends about how they must be ugly because they gave me a friendly greeting and I didn't latch onto them like a constrictor and relentlessly break down their defenses until sexual submission was achieved. I mean, maybe that's an exaggeration/dramatisation but you get the idea.
Not all girls are entirely rational, that doesn't mean they will lower their standards because you don't have the balls to ask them out.
You haven't given a reason why it wouldn't work. Why is it avoiding it, when it's addressing it in the most direct way possible? Ever since I've had a few online successes I've improved a fair bit, because I was able to interact sexually with girls IRL who were attracted to me, and from having my advances accepted I came to not view my sexuality as shameful. I'm not sure if I could ask a girl out yet that I don't know, but I've initiated the first kiss a few times, which is progress. The first girl initiated the first kiss. And, in my current relationship, I can casually express sexuality in a playful way without difficulty now, like I can walk past and slap her ass and know she'll enjoy it, usually do the same in return. So now sexuality feels like a natural part of relating to her, and not something to hide.
Your language here implies you're not comfortable with talking to women considering you view it all so clinically.
If you were comfortable being around a woman and especially a woman you have been seeing for a while. This language implies you're forcing yourself to do it.
If you don't find any of this coming naturally maybe you should try asking girls out and not expecting sex with them, and just being friends for a little while and letting something develop on it's own. You know, like it's supposed to. Sex isn't the end result of the relationship and only shallow guys see it this way.
I was listing what would theoretically work, not what would necessarily be practical or a good idea to try and instantiate for real. I mean, the volunteers would eventually have to become like sexual surrogates, or participate in a quasi-relationship with them. I say it more for an understanding of what they need, than what should be given.
It comes back to what they need is a patient girl who is willing to do most of the initiating at first, but most girls expect guys to take the lead, hence the issue.
This is such a very lazy proposition, the whole "Sexual volunteers" you're proposing. It reminds me of people who claim we should teach people to lead others when they're younger.
The fact of the matter is, what you are proposing is essentially giving in to people who are lazy and don't want to get over their fears and talk to women. And you're prescribing the responsibility should be on other women. Which just implies these men are entitled to having sex. Like they should also have people give them jobs with no effort on their part and teach them how to play musical instruments with no suggestion of practicing on their part.
Things will continue as they are.
The fact you see this as a bad thing implies far more than what you outright state here.
Apart from the mangling of grammar in the "why they are", this is actually a reasonable question. But it's also one with a lot of nuances, and the question implies there's a simpler answer than there is.
First, in terms of IQ, I consider most people on the LS forum to be average or slightly above.
However, if we're talking about "smart"/intelligence, that's a bit more involved.
I subscribe to the MBTI model of cognition, so I view intelligence more as competencies in the 4 main areas of information processing: S,N,T,F.
IQ tests focus on measuring competency in N and T - inuition and thinking/logic. This is probably the most suitable set of functions to focus on for an overall picture of "intelligence", because they're what most people associate as intelligence. Intuition deals with pattern recognition, abstraction, symbolism etc. Of course, there's extraverted and introverted orientations of each function; Ne is "joining the dots", Ni is "filling in the blanks" etc. So logic combined with N is the obvious "intellectual" combination.
I'm an INTP so I do well in these areas, but I recognise I have weaknesses in the other areas. S is dealing with sensory information, F deals with valuations, emotional models etc. Fe is social norms, external harmony, serving others, sympathy. Fi is personal valuation - being in tune with what you believe, knowing what you want, deciding what is morally right or wrong, empathy.
I'm actually not bad on the F, but I don't value it much for determining truth (Ti). Hence I'll sometimes deliberately say something discordant to social harmony because I dislike the need for social harmony overwhelming more important aspects of free expression, so it's to "keep it in check" as such lol. People here then assume that I am just oblivious to the social rule I broke.
Anyway, I suck pretty badly on S. If you asked me what colour the wallpaper in my house is, I probably couldn't answer. Actually, I can't remember if we have wallpaper, or if it's just painted.
So you get ISFP artist types who can draw these brilliant paintings and all and express their feelings in a sensory way, but they're not likely to understand abstraction or objective logic. Are they stupid? Well, that's why I refer to IQ as a slightly separate thing to intelligence.
I'll post some more on this, but I only post here when I'm bored in work, and I need to get some work done.
IQ tests are bullshit. As are personality tests. The only reason they exist is to validate a person's ego. So everything you wrote here is basically useless to anyone. Maybe if you spent more time talking to girls you'd have more success than researching inane bullshit.
If they have a disorder, it may be difficult for them. I never said it's always easy for them to enter into a relationship or date, just that the difficulty comes from within. Externally, things are always made easy, and it's easier to deal with the anxiety disorders because there's less pressure on women to appear confident or strong.
More entitlement. I already addressed all this.
I really want to stress a lot of what I'm about to say. But life isn't fair. You're not entitled to anything in this world, and life's a bitch and then you die. If you're unwilling to fail you're unworthy of succeeding. Stop whining and comparing yourself to other men and start improving yourself. You'll achieve far more success and look significantly more appealing to women if you have the confidence to stop complaining and start doing.
All of what you're doing is making men look bad and encouraging guys to continue being lazy and not improving themselves. Social anxiety can be beaten, it's not some boogeyman in the closet. You need to work at it.
