|Name:||Roy F. Baumeister|
|Birth:||May 16, 1953|
|Job:||Professor of Psychology|
By including this public figure on this wiki, we are not necessarily implying they are incel (involuntarily celibate) or are in any way associated with incels. Furthermore, with regards to any actual incels listed on this wiki, inceldom is a life circumstance, not an insult or a movement/community.
Roy F. Baumeister (/ˈbaʊmaɪstər/; born May 16, 1953) is a social psychologist best known in the incelosphere for being the virtual academic “founder” of sexual economics theory, or SET. He has worked on various topics relevant for inceldom, such as sexuality, sex differences and social exclusion. In one survey study he concluded belongingness is a fundamental need. In another one, he concluded men have higher libido. He is author of the book, “Is There Anything Good About Men?”.
He seems to have never explicitly addressed inceldom or the men’s movement, however Incel Wiki borrows a lot from his writings, observations and summaries. We also incidentally reach a lot of the same conclusions.
Baumeister has written about female gossip, the pussy cartel (not in those words), as well as about human self-regulation being limited. He promotes the notion that throughout history men reproduced less than half as often as women.
Although a lot of his observations are cited in the blackpill philosophy, contrary to a founding principle of blackpill philosophy, Roy acknowledges female sexual desire (rather than just behaviour) as malleable by society in short time-frames. Contrary to further additions to blackpill philosophy, he also suggests that men’s sexuality is more superficial and physically oriented than women. He believes female sex-drive is more malleable by society than male sexuality, what he dubs a “high erotic plasticity”. And he suggests that the malleability makes women suited for cultural progress as it relates to sexuality, rather than degeneration-due-to-lookist-inflexibility as the blackpill states.
Men’s sexuality revolves around physical factors, in which nature is predominant and the social and cultural dimension is secondary. For women, cultural factors play a much greater role, and the role of physical processes and biological nature is smaller.
The plasticity of the female sex drive [note: not just behaviour] offers greater capacity to adapt to changing external circumstances as well as an opportunity for culture to exert a controlling influence. From the global perspective of the broader society, if controlling people’s behavior is the goal, women’s sexual patterns are more easily changed than men’s.
If the sex drive is socioculturally malleable, then there exist many possible directions in which to pursue social progress and individual fulfillment. [in contrast to the blackpill which suggests either reaction or fatalism] In contrast, if the sex drive is fixed and static, then society must ultimately accommodate and confront those patterns, and individual choice will be a matter of pursuing those innate, inflexible desires. The gender difference in erotic plasticity suggests that women present a better prospect for achieving cultural progress than men, at least with regard to sexuality.
Roy offered a few possible explanations
- Women have had to change their minds about sexual opportunities more than men because of being sexual selectors for millions of years, making their inherent sexuality more flexible to environment
- Women’s weaker sex drive makes it more prone to being malleable
- Evidence from academic research on molestation suggests childhood “imprints” male sexuality whereas it does not for females
In his biography he said his parent’s harsh and confusing upbringing taught him curiosity and epistemic humility:
First, I have always wanted to find out what human life was really all about, and I habitually assume that my initial views are probably wrong. And, second, I try not to get emotionally attached to opinions and ideas.
Across many different studies and measures, men have been shown to have more frequent and more intense sexual desires than women, as reflected in spontaneous thoughts about sex, frequency and variety of sexual fantasies, desired frequency of intercourse, desired number of partners, masturbation, liking for various sexual practices, willingness to forego sex, initiating versus refusing sex, making sacrifices for sex, and other measures. No contrary findings (indicating stronger sexual motivation among women) were found. Hence we conclude that the male sex drive is stronger than the female sex drive.
Given the mismatch between men’s and women’s desires, most men are doomed to experience chronic sexual frustration. […] They are doomed to be horny.
- Baumeister, Catanese, and Vohs, Baumeister R, Catanese KR, Vohs KD. 2001. Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence. [FullText]
- Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252-1265.
- Baumeister referencing Buss & Schmitt, 1993
- Baumeister, Catanese, and Vohs, “Is There a Gender Difference in Strength of Sex Drive? Theoretical Views, Conceptual Distinctions, and a Review of Relevant Evidence”, 2001
- Baumeister & Tice, 2001
This page contains text from an editor (Bibipi) who wanted his text released under CC-BY-4.0. This template is automatically applied to every page we think he ever touched, no matter how minor the edit, even if just a period. In order to reduce complexity, this whole page is CC-BY-4.0. If using the whole page you may credit it as 'Bibipi, Altmark, William et al', unless otherwise stated. Most other pages on this wiki we declare as unlicensed to re-use by non-copyright-holders outside of here unless expressly stated by email and under the conditions listed in the email.