If you're a rich incel you can win in the end. The girl will go past your looks and be attracted to the cashflow.

Obviously, but that's worse than going to a hooker.

Listening to you guys talk you would think the only people that get women are rich, good looking guys.

Rich guys and good looking guys make up a small portion of the male society and yet most guys have at least dated most have married. So that blows that theory. If you stood in a busy street and watched the people going by do you think all the guys going by who have a woman with them are good looking? or rich? no way. Most of them are just average looking guys with average looking women.

Maybe you guys are setting your sights too high. If your at a 5 on the man scale then look for some who scores a 5 on lady scale. A drop dead gorgeous girl ain't gonna go for a geeky guy any more than a hunk is gonna go for a geeky woman.

well I was set to agree with you until I got to the last paragraph. I don't think guys here are setting their sights too high at all. Some have stated that they deliberately go for "fat, ugly girls" because it's all they think they can get. In my opinion, most girls (say 70%) are of acceptable attractiveness, and there isn't a whole lot of variation between them all. Perhaps between the top and bottom of the 70% there is noticeable variation, but it's very gradual. There is no reason why a guy who isn't extremely ugly himself can't expect to nab a girl who isn't in that 70%, with a little bit of effort.

mind you, this theory that "average=attractive" is mostly geared towards the 20-35 age group of women. When guys are older I think things change a bit as they have fewer females of acceptable attractiveness to choose from in their age range, which represents a different kind of problem for the love-shy/incel. That said, I'm pretty sure that most posters here are in the younger age range (even if we do have a few token older members). If you stick around this forum you will find that there is no way that guys here are having problems for setting their sights too high. If anything their problem is the opposite - they set their sights too low!

looks and creepiness are big for me...

I picked the top 3 primary because they relate to voluntary action. I think the most important factor is the "bad" personality, which I'm happy that "glad" is put in quotations, because it more rightly means one's projected personality. Women desire masculinity or implicit dominance. (Biological reasons for those too). Men desire the exact opposite. It's a fact that men are more concerned with looks compared to women, who focus mainly on "personality" (in quotations because "personality" denotes such a large spectrum). Women need security, men need a seed to fertilize (again, biological reasons for that).

I also picked general situation because it almost singularly defines a person. Neuroticism can be easily deduced from one's regular mannerisms and habits. And neuroticism is the probably the No. 1 turnoff for women.

And finally I picked approach. Men are excepted to be the initiators. So if they have a bad approach, then it's a no go.

Women aren't primarily interested in looks. I've heard plenty of accounts from girls who, although they don't realize why, are attracted to males who they profess aren't that attractive. But these males have a control over social situations. They take command, fearlessly and, of course, creeplessly. For some reason people can tell the difference. You get a love-shy guy to study the exact form and manner in which a social butterfly performs, and you put him in a similar situation, and he replicates the behavior, people will be put off. Women look for suitors who can ensure security. In modern homo sapiens this is identified by social control and dominance. In moose they fight. The winner gets the females. In sea horses, where the role is reversed, where men give birth and females transfer the "seed," the social roles are also reversed. Females seek to impregnate many males and males need security. Therefore females are made bulky and dominance and vice versa for males.
There's an interesting study about the sociological differences in men, which all point toward biology. Men and women were asked to offer casual sex to women and men respectively on the grounds that they were strangers to the person, and no other introduction was made. 75% of all males agreed to the stranger compared to 0% of females.

Sorry, have to call bullshit on that one, and that's just PUA crap, LOOKS is the main factor in the dating game, and it has nothing to do with controlling a social situation. Women just say looks don't count, because they don't want to looks shallow and superficial, but when push comes to shove, the better looking guy almost always wins out.

Looks, social status, and money.

Losing combination.

My problems are looks and bad social skills. If I had good looks and good social skills, I wouldn't be incel.

Huh, I don't want to debate this because it's not really something to debate. Women are focused on personality-based traits. Tons of studies have been performed to confirm this. Just read "The Evolution of Desire." Looks may get you in the door, but if you're awkward, then that'll turn the girl off immediately. She'll no longer consider sex with you. Not so for men. If a girl is attractive, and acts awkward, she remains attractive to the guy. The guy would still love to have sex. I've talked with plenty of girls about who they find attractive and from my personal observation, it's true. My best friend is a top notch ladies men. Who has utter control over any social situation and no shame. Girls admit that he isn't that good looking. Yet girls fall in love with the guy, sometimes obsessively so, because they admire his social dominance. It's only biological.

You said it yourself. I don't get in the door. Same for many guys here probably.

I have never been on a date. Not. One. Date.

In my case, I think the biggest factor is height. I am 5'6". That instantly puts me in the reject pile in many cases.

However I admit that isn't a complete nuclear dealbreaker. But I do not have any other traits that most women deem "attractive" - both physical and otherwise - that it might as well be a dealbreaker.

Oh I forgot to mention. You know what the ending results of being a "pure" incel?........... DEATH.

incel

Incels and Love-shy's die first.

I wouldn't actually go so far as to say "get you in the door." Because approaching techniques get you in the door. Looks are more of a predisposed help to getting in the door. If that makes any sense lol