What do you think?
Rate this book
The Blackpill Theory: why incels are right & you are wrong.
Today it seems that almost everyone has a view on what it means to be an "incel" and why these sexless men behave the way they do. The irony is that very little of this debate is informed sincerely with scientific data or by what these men have to say. This engaging book takes an in-depth look at three contemporary issues – lookism, romantic satisfaction, and modern dating – by exploring how incel men experience them in a variety of circumstances. As the very first published approach to inceldom of its kind, Dr. Lukas Castle draws on qualitative and quantitative data as well as addressing a theory of social interaction, which is branded The Blackpill. The author demonstrates the importance of developing an empirically informed approach to men’s societal experiences based on an understanding of the significance of physical attractiveness. This is an important and timely book into the social problem of male inceldom which will be invaluable to researchers in sociology and gender studies, as well as professionals concerned with men’s health.
- GenresNonfictionPsychology
256 pages, Paperback
Published November 15, 2019
11 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
August 3, 2025
This book raises an important issue on this topic about incels, which is often ignored as well as providing a better understanding about the incels. This book also refutes several myths and depictions by the media and feminists organisations as them being "basement dwelling virgins that hate women because they can't get laid." Firstly, I find the acts committed by individuals who they themselves or the media identifies them as incels to be appalling and I don't condone their "extreme" views either.
In my opinion, these incels come off as rather angry and misunderstood than hateful as well as being jaded and cynical with life and although some of these incels do have homicidal tendencies but many of them are depressed, self-loathing, suicidal and even committed suicide. From my understanding, the issue concerning these incels is a lack of intimacy like a close female companionship as well as experiencing low self-esteem due to a lack of female validation. So what these incels experience is loneliness and isolation, which is one of the main causes of male suicide.
This book does explain more about the black pill concept where everything in life is down to genetic determinism in where physical appearances does have an impact on how people are judged and treated throughout their lives. It not just about appearances but also physical and mental prowess such as being born gifted and talented, which is described as winning the "genetic lottery."
So it's no surprise why these incels would either be bitterly frustrated or cynically depressed because in their mind, they have been ignored and dehumanised by society for a long time due to being unlucky in the genetic lottery as many of them are born with physical deformities and mental disabilities, which makes their lives harder and miserable for them to live. Even thought there are some who are fortunate enough to be born normal looking but experience some mental health issues like body dysmorphia as they are so concerned with their looks and would even see themselves as ugly when others would see them as normal.
I believe the ongoing uses of technology such as dating apps like tinder and social media like instagram does play a hand in this as society is become more superficial and materialistic where people judge others based on looks, money and status. It is easy for the media and people aka the "normies" to ridicule and demonise these incels rather than understanding them because many of them are men while ignoring there are women who are incels aka femcels but they are more likely to gain sympathy and compassion. This reveals there is a total lack of empathy and compassion for men's feelings and wellbeing and how society fails to acknowledge that these incels are human beings who are unfortunate in life due to circumstances which are beyond their control like experiencing poverty without any hope and resources that could make their lives better.
Even though the black pill does reveal some unpleasant truths, these incels should not give up on life and give into hopelessness and despair as this book does comes up with ways to help these incels to become happier and productive in life. This is the only book I know that does shed light on this topic about incels in an unbiased view so far and I admit I find this book to be surprisingly easy and enjoyable to read.
In my opinion, these incels come off as rather angry and misunderstood than hateful as well as being jaded and cynical with life and although some of these incels do have homicidal tendencies but many of them are depressed, self-loathing, suicidal and even committed suicide. From my understanding, the issue concerning these incels is a lack of intimacy like a close female companionship as well as experiencing low self-esteem due to a lack of female validation. So what these incels experience is loneliness and isolation, which is one of the main causes of male suicide.
This book does explain more about the black pill concept where everything in life is down to genetic determinism in where physical appearances does have an impact on how people are judged and treated throughout their lives. It not just about appearances but also physical and mental prowess such as being born gifted and talented, which is described as winning the "genetic lottery."
So it's no surprise why these incels would either be bitterly frustrated or cynically depressed because in their mind, they have been ignored and dehumanised by society for a long time due to being unlucky in the genetic lottery as many of them are born with physical deformities and mental disabilities, which makes their lives harder and miserable for them to live. Even thought there are some who are fortunate enough to be born normal looking but experience some mental health issues like body dysmorphia as they are so concerned with their looks and would even see themselves as ugly when others would see them as normal.
I believe the ongoing uses of technology such as dating apps like tinder and social media like instagram does play a hand in this as society is become more superficial and materialistic where people judge others based on looks, money and status. It is easy for the media and people aka the "normies" to ridicule and demonise these incels rather than understanding them because many of them are men while ignoring there are women who are incels aka femcels but they are more likely to gain sympathy and compassion. This reveals there is a total lack of empathy and compassion for men's feelings and wellbeing and how society fails to acknowledge that these incels are human beings who are unfortunate in life due to circumstances which are beyond their control like experiencing poverty without any hope and resources that could make their lives better.
Even though the black pill does reveal some unpleasant truths, these incels should not give up on life and give into hopelessness and despair as this book does comes up with ways to help these incels to become happier and productive in life. This is the only book I know that does shed light on this topic about incels in an unbiased view so far and I admit I find this book to be surprisingly easy and enjoyable to read.
April 24, 2020
This book was filled with flaws, from grammar to poor citation to most of the most divisive claims, and only supported certain ideas with scanty readings of online websites or what looked like weak readings of real academic articles. It keeps trying to portray itself as 'scientific' and yet uses the F-word in abundance like no other scientifically drawn ideas I've perused lately. To top it off, he repeatedly condemns others for giving him advice by saying taking a shower is not enough to make girls focus less on looks--which just makes me wonder what this guy has with not taking a shower. Overall rating: flawed and infantile presentation, if he had a viable message in there somewhere.
December 17, 2019
This is an important contribution to our emerging problem of how society stigmatizes a specific population - incels (sexless men). The Blackpill Theory provides loads of dry scientific data and makes evolutionary-based conclusions, but it is an overall easy read. The book opened my eyes to a few things I never considered before. It will be a valuable read to any open-minded readers.
October 6, 2020
This book describes dating, relationships, men, and women from the blackpill and incel point of view. The blackpill theory says that women select men based more on looks than personality. It's well-written, and backed up by research. I would say most of the books findings are sound. The content is taboo and politically incorrect, and those espousing such views are often demonised, but when you think about it, the theories make logical sense. One is allowed to demonise incels and men, but why is that the case? They are people who are often born defective in some way in the eyes of women, through no fault of their own (race, height, jawline), so why should they get stick for it? The animosity between men and women appears to be socially engineered on purpose to serve a wider agenda; those exposing such a thing are bound to get attacked.
March 19, 2020
Shame you can't give 0 stars innit
September 15, 2022
Oh boy, oh boy, where do I even start with you?
This book is bad... like, really, really BAD.
So why the 4 stars, you may ask?
Because it is bad... for you since the topic treated here are quite depressing and dark. This, however, makes them false or simply something we should ignore for our sake? I'm afraid we are past the time for such luxury anymore.
The Blackpill Theory is a book that focuses on exploring the phenomenon of Incels (Involuntary Celibates) and their communities, alongside the Sexual mating (and dating) theory of "The BlackPill", which is one of the many faces of the "Manosphere". And I must say, the argument used in this book are very well damn convincing and, as the most important part, it tries its best (linking a very generous amount of sources for its claims, mostly peer-reviewed scientifical studies) to treat "Inceldom" not as a choice, but as a condition similar to Asperger, Autism and the like. This, based on the black pill assumptions, is actually true: it's not like they choose to be born with undesirable faces, bodies and, as a reflection of this during their adolescence, where their social interactions are, usually, not healthy, an undesirable personality.
What makes this book worth the read for me is the fact that
1- It tries to understand the pain and sorrow that causes all the coping mechanisms many community members are famous for (Misogyny, threats of violence, discrimination, etc...). Because, let's face it, you don't become misogynistic, misandrist, racist or homophobic for fun, there is usually a profound reason behind it that must be understood to truly "help" those people.
2- In doing this, it does NOT diminish or insults the other sides to prove its point. Yes, some concepts may be deemed as controversial, but they are ALWAYS supported by scientific research behind it, so people are free to make their own judgement in a completely neutral environment.
However, in my own opinion, the author makes a fatal misstep to the end of the book when he praises the MGTOW philosophy as the "potential" only way to escape the Inceldom nightmare. For my understanding, the MGTOW idea of becoming detached from society and relationship has a lot of aspects in common with Buddhism (contrary to what mainstream media thinks, this isolation comes out as a solution to a concrete problem for many men who embrace the manosphere ideas, BUT it does not support itself through hate, rage or sense of power towards others: in fact, the essence of the MGTOW philosophy is to be so much in balance with your emotions to leave many societal aspects after a purely logical analysis of pros and cons), and the author pinpoints a good change of view when posing yourself questions about relationships, from "How can I" to "Why I should". However, as I said before, this particular mindset requires excellent control of your emotional status, something that many participants in the incels community lack (for the moment), and as such, making them unfitting to follow this ideology (Again, for the moment), otherwise is a recipe for disaster... and the author doesn't pinpoint this aspect, which is a huge misstep in my humble opinion (thus one less star).
Besides that, I repeat my statement: the book is worth reading, particularly to those outsides who fret their judgment, thinking sharing a discussion with "the enemy" will demolish their ideas. This book doesn't do that: it gives you a statement supported with data (lots of it) without actually using the usual argument of "We have it worse than you, this is worse than that, etc. etc."; no, it simply focuses on one issue that affects men, and it goes to explain why it's not that simple to judge from the cover.
This book is bad... like, really, really BAD.
So why the 4 stars, you may ask?
Because it is bad... for you since the topic treated here are quite depressing and dark. This, however, makes them false or simply something we should ignore for our sake? I'm afraid we are past the time for such luxury anymore.
The Blackpill Theory is a book that focuses on exploring the phenomenon of Incels (Involuntary Celibates) and their communities, alongside the Sexual mating (and dating) theory of "The BlackPill", which is one of the many faces of the "Manosphere". And I must say, the argument used in this book are very well damn convincing and, as the most important part, it tries its best (linking a very generous amount of sources for its claims, mostly peer-reviewed scientifical studies) to treat "Inceldom" not as a choice, but as a condition similar to Asperger, Autism and the like. This, based on the black pill assumptions, is actually true: it's not like they choose to be born with undesirable faces, bodies and, as a reflection of this during their adolescence, where their social interactions are, usually, not healthy, an undesirable personality.
What makes this book worth the read for me is the fact that
1- It tries to understand the pain and sorrow that causes all the coping mechanisms many community members are famous for (Misogyny, threats of violence, discrimination, etc...). Because, let's face it, you don't become misogynistic, misandrist, racist or homophobic for fun, there is usually a profound reason behind it that must be understood to truly "help" those people.
2- In doing this, it does NOT diminish or insults the other sides to prove its point. Yes, some concepts may be deemed as controversial, but they are ALWAYS supported by scientific research behind it, so people are free to make their own judgement in a completely neutral environment.
However, in my own opinion, the author makes a fatal misstep to the end of the book when he praises the MGTOW philosophy as the "potential" only way to escape the Inceldom nightmare. For my understanding, the MGTOW idea of becoming detached from society and relationship has a lot of aspects in common with Buddhism (contrary to what mainstream media thinks, this isolation comes out as a solution to a concrete problem for many men who embrace the manosphere ideas, BUT it does not support itself through hate, rage or sense of power towards others: in fact, the essence of the MGTOW philosophy is to be so much in balance with your emotions to leave many societal aspects after a purely logical analysis of pros and cons), and the author pinpoints a good change of view when posing yourself questions about relationships, from "How can I" to "Why I should". However, as I said before, this particular mindset requires excellent control of your emotional status, something that many participants in the incels community lack (for the moment), and as such, making them unfitting to follow this ideology (Again, for the moment), otherwise is a recipe for disaster... and the author doesn't pinpoint this aspect, which is a huge misstep in my humble opinion (thus one less star).
Besides that, I repeat my statement: the book is worth reading, particularly to those outsides who fret their judgment, thinking sharing a discussion with "the enemy" will demolish their ideas. This book doesn't do that: it gives you a statement supported with data (lots of it) without actually using the usual argument of "We have it worse than you, this is worse than that, etc. etc."; no, it simply focuses on one issue that affects men, and it goes to explain why it's not that simple to judge from the cover.
January 1, 2026
LOL I refuse to believe that a serious academic would actually cook this up because this book was genuinely horrible. This book attempts to establish factual conclusions while cherrypicking evidence that does not directly support his conclusions. While his conclusions ARE logical, his logic is not sound because they are founded in erroneous premises. He tries to disguise these premises by subtly passing off many assumptions as factual statements, that once questioned, quickly fall apart.
The main idea that he gets wrong is that, to be in a satisfying relationship, the ONLY thing that matters is appearances. The farther somebody strays from the conventionally attractive standard, the slimmer their chances are in finding a girlfriend. While this is partially true when it comes to initially attracting somebody, this idea does not hold out in long-term relationships. Rather than clairifying what he's talking about, he groups both initial attraction and long-term relationships to be the same, as if, if you are able to get into a relationship, you will necessarily be able to hold onto it for life.
1) There are things here that I think most people would agree with. Fact: the Halo Effect is real! For better or for worse, appearances are quite important, and not just in a superficial way that we can train ourselves to ignore: someone's appearance will distort your perceptions of them, such as seeing attractive people as kinder or more intelligent. Somebody who is not conventionally attractive will likely have a harder time accomplishing the same things as somebody who is conventionally attractive. Appearances are an important part of first impressions, but they are just that: first impressions. You will be more biased and go up and talk to somebody because they are attractive, but no amount of jaw will solve a foul personality. If you're unpleasant to talk to, you're done! Additionally, unless you come off as if you're hitting on somebody, I sincerely do not buy that 99% of people will not talk to you just because you are ugly to them. Say, if you're at an extracurricular, a meetup, at a new job, people will not disdain you for your appearances.
2) He claims incels are created because of a lack of external validation for their appearance growing up. "Regular" people supposedly get their confidence from their good looks and consequently their romantic success, creating a virtuous cycle that feeds into their self-confidence to continue succeeding, a process that ugly people miss out on. The author wrongly wrongly assumes that the only compliments that matter are the ones that you do get on your looks growing up. But that's not the only place you can get compliments from?? Think skills, hobbies, arts etc., pre-puberty, I don't think I even thought about anybody's appearances more than like 4-5 times. Additionally, what about friends? Many people don't get into a relationship until their 20s and yet still have confidence, how is that explained? He attempts to reduce this complicated issue of self-esteem to only being formed through compliments on your appearances. Clearly, the creation of an incel is more complicated than he is willing to look into. Like look at this:
"When a dude's face is attractive, women are more interested. He is more desirable. He has a better chance at genuine intimacy and romance with women. He no longer has to pay for escort sex. This is what boosts his self-esteem and bolsters his mental health" (p10_) Yo NO ONE is telling you to pay for sex. And secondly, romance is only part of self-esteem, does he seriously think that anyone in a relationship is content for life?
3) This book insists that Incel logic is not misogynistic but rather an objective observation of facts. FACT: we have biological hardwiring that greatly influence our experiences. However, take a look at this paragraph:
"Incels should stop being misogynists because women are not guilty for their desires. They are not guilty for finding them unattractive. It's not a choice for heterosexual women - it's just their hard-wired biology"
This statement creates the narrative that women are not genuinely in control of what they want. Any possibility that they may find something outside of the conventionally attractive agenda attractive is a bug in their coding or they are being dishonest. It belittles their autonomy. Women DO know what they want or do NOT want and this statement inherently disrespects that right. This sexist rhetoric is a well-slicked pipeline towards misogyny.
To add, his ideas are based in an evolutive perspective, which again, is also sexist, which he himself admits. "Evolutive reality is by definition sexist. Men provide; women have babies" (p68). Ignoring the sexism, whether this idea is even real or not, is still ongoing. I really don't buy it and it's intentionally oversimplified to support discourse over continue divided gender roles. He cherrypicks ideas from evolution to prove his point. Anybody can easily extrapolate ideas they've seen to fit their agenda more. For example, if appearance is all that mattered, why aren't more people just conventionally attractive? Does he mean to imply that in a natural world now, everyone will start looking conventionally attractive? Why are short men alive too? In fact, if women supposedly just "choose the best mate", wouldn't some men just have a bunch of harems? Why are so many people monogomaous then? Why do some women not like conventionally attractive people? Yes, ignore how multifaceted attraction is!
Random sprinkle of sexism here, he suggests that women have "like five lines of dialogue, 'I like to travel, drink wine, and be with my dog!'"
4) Something he does also is liken the plight of incels to muslims, or racism and actual disorders like schizophrenia. Here is a really telling quote:
"It is suggested that he join clubs, work harder to excel in his career, and become the center of his social circle. We encourage him to radiate happiness, to be charismatic, and to be funny. And to do all that while being alon nad depressed. To do all of that while shouldering the weight of extreme self-loathing. Then maybe, just maybe, if he overcomes all odds, he will get a chance at human affection. Brutal" (p109).
Yo pls get over yourself LMFAO, does this guy not realize that most people aren't these things? He claims that he doesn't encourage the nihilism but clearly he's suggesting that it's IMPOSSIBLE for incels to get over their feelings of inadequacy. Stop working from an idealistic standpoint and ground yourself in reality, imagining how it's never going to work out for you is making it not work out for you. This guy really thinks anyone who isn't chopped is living the easy life. Bro we ALL GOT PROBLEMS. Does he really mean to suggest that once you have a girlfriend, all your issues are solved? Such a baby.
5) This guy cannot make up his mind whether personality matters or not either. At one point, he says that "personality has no biological value", which is crazy to say first of all as it's later followed by this situation: "often times the alpha guy is a risky gamble - she is physically attracted to him but at the same time is also unsure if he will ever be 'marriage material'. In other words, the traits that make a man a good sexual partner to women sometimes make him a bad relationship partner". But what does he define as a bad partner? His character traits? Oh, you mean his personality?
As well, he talks about a tinder study that mentions how men profiles without bios got 4x less responses. To which he says "this further confirms that women do care about personality to some extent." TO SOME EXTENT is doing crazy heavy lifting here. It obviously doesn't disprove girls care about appearances, but it hacks away a lot at his whole idea that appearance is all that matters.
Here's another thing to show how unserious this guy is: "One could counter that Tinder, for example, has such a strong emphasis on physical appearances because there is only a limited space for well-developed profiles. This would be a lazy argument, because Tinder allows the user to bring in outside social media to enhance one's profile. This includes both Instagram for social proof and Spotify for musical tastes". IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT SUFFICIENT, that is the laziest counter argument ever. What kind of flat personality does he have where he would think that's sufficient? Then he backtracks on his statement: "women only swipe right on attractive men because that is the only dimension of attractiveness that is expressed" ^-^ I thought looks were all people looked for.
Anyways, overall there's a part in the book that mentions how you could be an incel even if you're not aware of it. That's just not true. Being an incel is more than just being not celibate, it's about revolving your identity around your lack of romance and feeling a sense of worthlessness from it. Nobody is saying that romance isn't important, but letting your status of celibacy define you? What factors in your life have driven you to place such an importance on this? Should you be considering it so important? What is a life dedicated to seeking validation from another person? So much yap, creating a theory based on something he didn't properly consider to be wrong. Lots of contradictions. Not good!
Extra stupid things to read about:
- There's these sections that genuinely feel like hallucinated issues such as him claiming that others commonly say that incels should be satisfied with just masturbation and prostitution. Who in the world is saying this LMFAO.
- Mixed in with the occasional study citation is just PURE speculation. So much of his research is just him scrolling on incel forums for years and using polls from there.
- "Incels do need to stop the misogyny, but not because it would help them find a girlfriend. It would not" (p51) no words for this one.
- "The roles (of men and women) are basically inverses of each other because our biology is inverse to each other" (p78) 10/10 speculation
⦁ A looks only dating app exists, but a personality-only app does not. If personality is such a desirable trait, if not the most desired trait as is commonly claimed, why does an app with this type of feature not exist?
⦁ Here are some direct examples of passing off assumptions as facts: "Male peers begin to look down upon other males who are not successful with the opposite sex" (p105). He continues on about how this will grind down his self-esteem. Here, he clearly doesn't bother questioning why other men are looking down on their peers for not being romantically successful. Food for thought? Nope, just brush it under the rug, it's totally natural and everybody does it of course!
⦁ "When one cannot acquire romantic interest, it will breed feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and depression" (p106). Is it always true? No. Does he bother to explain it? No.
The main idea that he gets wrong is that, to be in a satisfying relationship, the ONLY thing that matters is appearances. The farther somebody strays from the conventionally attractive standard, the slimmer their chances are in finding a girlfriend. While this is partially true when it comes to initially attracting somebody, this idea does not hold out in long-term relationships. Rather than clairifying what he's talking about, he groups both initial attraction and long-term relationships to be the same, as if, if you are able to get into a relationship, you will necessarily be able to hold onto it for life.
1) There are things here that I think most people would agree with. Fact: the Halo Effect is real! For better or for worse, appearances are quite important, and not just in a superficial way that we can train ourselves to ignore: someone's appearance will distort your perceptions of them, such as seeing attractive people as kinder or more intelligent. Somebody who is not conventionally attractive will likely have a harder time accomplishing the same things as somebody who is conventionally attractive. Appearances are an important part of first impressions, but they are just that: first impressions. You will be more biased and go up and talk to somebody because they are attractive, but no amount of jaw will solve a foul personality. If you're unpleasant to talk to, you're done! Additionally, unless you come off as if you're hitting on somebody, I sincerely do not buy that 99% of people will not talk to you just because you are ugly to them. Say, if you're at an extracurricular, a meetup, at a new job, people will not disdain you for your appearances.
2) He claims incels are created because of a lack of external validation for their appearance growing up. "Regular" people supposedly get their confidence from their good looks and consequently their romantic success, creating a virtuous cycle that feeds into their self-confidence to continue succeeding, a process that ugly people miss out on. The author wrongly wrongly assumes that the only compliments that matter are the ones that you do get on your looks growing up. But that's not the only place you can get compliments from?? Think skills, hobbies, arts etc., pre-puberty, I don't think I even thought about anybody's appearances more than like 4-5 times. Additionally, what about friends? Many people don't get into a relationship until their 20s and yet still have confidence, how is that explained? He attempts to reduce this complicated issue of self-esteem to only being formed through compliments on your appearances. Clearly, the creation of an incel is more complicated than he is willing to look into. Like look at this:
"When a dude's face is attractive, women are more interested. He is more desirable. He has a better chance at genuine intimacy and romance with women. He no longer has to pay for escort sex. This is what boosts his self-esteem and bolsters his mental health" (p10_) Yo NO ONE is telling you to pay for sex. And secondly, romance is only part of self-esteem, does he seriously think that anyone in a relationship is content for life?
3) This book insists that Incel logic is not misogynistic but rather an objective observation of facts. FACT: we have biological hardwiring that greatly influence our experiences. However, take a look at this paragraph:
"Incels should stop being misogynists because women are not guilty for their desires. They are not guilty for finding them unattractive. It's not a choice for heterosexual women - it's just their hard-wired biology"
This statement creates the narrative that women are not genuinely in control of what they want. Any possibility that they may find something outside of the conventionally attractive agenda attractive is a bug in their coding or they are being dishonest. It belittles their autonomy. Women DO know what they want or do NOT want and this statement inherently disrespects that right. This sexist rhetoric is a well-slicked pipeline towards misogyny.
To add, his ideas are based in an evolutive perspective, which again, is also sexist, which he himself admits. "Evolutive reality is by definition sexist. Men provide; women have babies" (p68). Ignoring the sexism, whether this idea is even real or not, is still ongoing. I really don't buy it and it's intentionally oversimplified to support discourse over continue divided gender roles. He cherrypicks ideas from evolution to prove his point. Anybody can easily extrapolate ideas they've seen to fit their agenda more. For example, if appearance is all that mattered, why aren't more people just conventionally attractive? Does he mean to imply that in a natural world now, everyone will start looking conventionally attractive? Why are short men alive too? In fact, if women supposedly just "choose the best mate", wouldn't some men just have a bunch of harems? Why are so many people monogomaous then? Why do some women not like conventionally attractive people? Yes, ignore how multifaceted attraction is!
Random sprinkle of sexism here, he suggests that women have "like five lines of dialogue, 'I like to travel, drink wine, and be with my dog!'"
4) Something he does also is liken the plight of incels to muslims, or racism and actual disorders like schizophrenia. Here is a really telling quote:
"It is suggested that he join clubs, work harder to excel in his career, and become the center of his social circle. We encourage him to radiate happiness, to be charismatic, and to be funny. And to do all that while being alon nad depressed. To do all of that while shouldering the weight of extreme self-loathing. Then maybe, just maybe, if he overcomes all odds, he will get a chance at human affection. Brutal" (p109).
Yo pls get over yourself LMFAO, does this guy not realize that most people aren't these things? He claims that he doesn't encourage the nihilism but clearly he's suggesting that it's IMPOSSIBLE for incels to get over their feelings of inadequacy. Stop working from an idealistic standpoint and ground yourself in reality, imagining how it's never going to work out for you is making it not work out for you. This guy really thinks anyone who isn't chopped is living the easy life. Bro we ALL GOT PROBLEMS. Does he really mean to suggest that once you have a girlfriend, all your issues are solved? Such a baby.
5) This guy cannot make up his mind whether personality matters or not either. At one point, he says that "personality has no biological value", which is crazy to say first of all as it's later followed by this situation: "often times the alpha guy is a risky gamble - she is physically attracted to him but at the same time is also unsure if he will ever be 'marriage material'. In other words, the traits that make a man a good sexual partner to women sometimes make him a bad relationship partner". But what does he define as a bad partner? His character traits? Oh, you mean his personality?
As well, he talks about a tinder study that mentions how men profiles without bios got 4x less responses. To which he says "this further confirms that women do care about personality to some extent." TO SOME EXTENT is doing crazy heavy lifting here. It obviously doesn't disprove girls care about appearances, but it hacks away a lot at his whole idea that appearance is all that matters.
Here's another thing to show how unserious this guy is: "One could counter that Tinder, for example, has such a strong emphasis on physical appearances because there is only a limited space for well-developed profiles. This would be a lazy argument, because Tinder allows the user to bring in outside social media to enhance one's profile. This includes both Instagram for social proof and Spotify for musical tastes". IN WHAT WORLD IS THAT SUFFICIENT, that is the laziest counter argument ever. What kind of flat personality does he have where he would think that's sufficient? Then he backtracks on his statement: "women only swipe right on attractive men because that is the only dimension of attractiveness that is expressed" ^-^ I thought looks were all people looked for.
Anyways, overall there's a part in the book that mentions how you could be an incel even if you're not aware of it. That's just not true. Being an incel is more than just being not celibate, it's about revolving your identity around your lack of romance and feeling a sense of worthlessness from it. Nobody is saying that romance isn't important, but letting your status of celibacy define you? What factors in your life have driven you to place such an importance on this? Should you be considering it so important? What is a life dedicated to seeking validation from another person? So much yap, creating a theory based on something he didn't properly consider to be wrong. Lots of contradictions. Not good!
Extra stupid things to read about:
- There's these sections that genuinely feel like hallucinated issues such as him claiming that others commonly say that incels should be satisfied with just masturbation and prostitution. Who in the world is saying this LMFAO.
- Mixed in with the occasional study citation is just PURE speculation. So much of his research is just him scrolling on incel forums for years and using polls from there.
- "Incels do need to stop the misogyny, but not because it would help them find a girlfriend. It would not" (p51) no words for this one.
- "The roles (of men and women) are basically inverses of each other because our biology is inverse to each other" (p78) 10/10 speculation
⦁ A looks only dating app exists, but a personality-only app does not. If personality is such a desirable trait, if not the most desired trait as is commonly claimed, why does an app with this type of feature not exist?
⦁ Here are some direct examples of passing off assumptions as facts: "Male peers begin to look down upon other males who are not successful with the opposite sex" (p105). He continues on about how this will grind down his self-esteem. Here, he clearly doesn't bother questioning why other men are looking down on their peers for not being romantically successful. Food for thought? Nope, just brush it under the rug, it's totally natural and everybody does it of course!
⦁ "When one cannot acquire romantic interest, it will breed feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and depression" (p106). Is it always true? No. Does he bother to explain it? No.
April 5, 2021
I can say with confidence that I've never stumbled upon such bullshit. I don't even know where to start. Do yourself a favour and don't even bother with this trash book
September 13, 2021
Considers a fundamental problem that almost always ignored
This is a great book. The author hits all the salient points, with references to back them up, for the people who are going to "Do you have sources?" The main one being that often times externalities one does not control can have extremely negative consequences on life outcomes. This is something Society does not like to acknowledge because it means that Society may be wrong.
This is a great book. The author hits all the salient points, with references to back them up, for the people who are going to "Do you have sources?" The main one being that often times externalities one does not control can have extremely negative consequences on life outcomes. This is something Society does not like to acknowledge because it means that Society may be wrong.
Read
July 24, 2022A short book written for incels but also apparently meant to reach a wider audience and introduce them to the blackpill, "The Blackpill Theory: why incels are right and you are wrong" introduces concepts such as the Pareto principle, alpha fux, beta bux, hypergamy, dual mating strategy, halo effect, key and lock metaphor and Chadfishing.
The book is a waste of time and money since the gist of its argument can be gained by browsing incel forums and incels themselves are probably already familiar with all its concepts.
Its solutions are the typical self-improvement, MGTOW and therapy.
Overall pretty disappointing, a rather lazy compilation of statistics and information that can be obtained from elsewhere for free. Mercifully short I suppose.
The book is a waste of time and money since the gist of its argument can be gained by browsing incel forums and incels themselves are probably already familiar with all its concepts.
Its solutions are the typical self-improvement, MGTOW and therapy.
Overall pretty disappointing, a rather lazy compilation of statistics and information that can be obtained from elsewhere for free. Mercifully short I suppose.
December 28, 2022
Harsh, painful, and shocking are the initial words to describe the findings presented in the book about female sexuality and behavior. But in the end, it was more liberating than painful. The black pill theory is one of the most comprehensive and mature research findings on female behavior and mating strategy. The author made sure that the findings do not develop a misogynistic attitude towards females which is genuinely laudable. The final warning to all the readers is that once you take the blackpill, there is no going back. All the facts presented are bolstered by scientific papers which makes it a well-researched book of all time on this theme.
April 6, 2025
I guess the full title of
The Blackpill Theory: why incels are right & you are wrong.
tell us exactly what kind of book we’re in for. What the pseudonymous Dr. Castle want to tell us is that the incels are right in their overall framing of the social world, while “normies” are looking at the world through delusional rose-tinted glasses. Castle wants to frame incels as the ones accepting basic facts about realities, while the rest are walking around in blissful denial. Granted, Castle wants the reader to not default to complete nihilism due to this. Rather, Castle wants the incel to simply accept his framework as the most truthful expression of empirical reality.
But what kind of framework is that? Castle argues that the social world should necessarily be understood as fundamentally deterministic. Your role and destiny in human society entirely predestined by the cards you’re dealt by nature from birth. In extension of this, Castle defines “incels” as people, predominantly men, who lives a life without physical and emotional intimacy against their wishes and desires. What in popular culture is additionally attributed to incels is disregarded as either imprecise or not descriptive of the incels way of being.
Although, the issues with the book begins to arise already at the definition of an incel. Castle starts the book out by saying that people can be or become incels due to physical issues, mental issues or both. But Castle quickly ditches the mental side of the issue and focuses solely on the physical attributes (or lack thereof) that defines incels. The reasons for this are rather clear, but I’ll return to this later.
The thing that goes through this book is something that a brainier person than I would probably call Hegelian recognition, with the incel taking up the position of the slave that mirrors themselves in the master, in this case taken up by the women. This description isn’t entirely precise, as the master in Hegel’s philosophy, despite the recognition, is an independent being. In the Blackpill Theory women have no such being. Don’t get me wrong, women and the preferences of women is talked about a lot, but at no point is a woman asked, or women surveyed about their place in the social framework of incels. Women as such exists not as being, but as objects of desire and as numbers in statistics.
So even if Castle prefaced the book with stating that it isn’t a scholastic text, Medieval scholasticism is the closest I can come to describing the Blackpill Theory. Like the monks, priests and ascetics of the 13th century, Castle is trying to understand and interpret the unknowable. The only difference is that the Christian God is here replaced by the feminine. But instead of beauty in the creation, Castle finds only misery in its deterministic natural clockwork. But considering the rather obvious materialistic existence of women, I don’t see Castle having the same excuses as Thomas Aquinas.
This sort of framing gave rise to a singular and very politically incorrect thought: Peter Sloterdijk once wrote, although the exact book escapes me, that rationalism as an epistemological framework is inherently autistic. Centering knowledge in individual thought removes both the social element of knowing and removes the individual from their emotional and instinctive life that isn’t possible to fit into rationalism. Castle’s fetishistic obsession on reducing complicated social phenomenon to numbers and naturalistic truisms seems to fit right into Sloterdijk’s observation. Instead of just talking to a woman or women, Castle just wants to talk about how many people that swipe left on Tinder analyzing context or the numbers themselves.
For that reason, it’s not that strange that incels are considered misogynists, when it comes to what Castle considers the fundamental recognition of the sexual revolution and the effect that it supposedly had on men’s ability to find an intimate partner. Due to incels centering themselves in the discourse, incels are putting themselves in a dictating position in regards to a previously socially subjugated group of people. That women now have the same sexual opportunities as men, with almost as few risks, is only considered in the light of how it has negatively effected incels. This line of argumentation has the same energy, If not the same comparable scale, to someone arguing that it was bad for the plantation owners that slavery was outlawed. I’m sorry to say this, but that point doesn’t really matter when the alternative would be to lessen the rights and/or abilities of a group or groups of people.
There’s also something to be said about the online spaces that incels find themselves in. It might just be a few of the incels that espouse misogynist sentiments, but it’s the majority of incels in those spaces that accept those talking points. If hating women isn’t a dealbreaker for you, then are you really better than the actual misogynists?
Let’s return to the beginning and talk about mentality and physical attributes. I will start by correcting myself a bit. Castle does bring up mentality from time to time, but it’s always subservient or secondary to physical attributes. And as such the mentality of incels is always playing second fiddle to how they may or may not look.
What I find fascinating about Castle’s analysis of looks and mentality is that it’s basically two-step circular reasoning. Physical attractiveness makes you confident in yourself, and being confident makes you more attractive. And as such the circle is closed. Castle argues that incels, due to their lack of physical attractiveness, can never enter this circle and experience the positive feedback loop. And that seems really weird to me. Why can’t you be confident in yourself even if you’re ugly? Like, I’m not good looking (there’s a reason I wear a gasmask in my profile picture, after all,) but I’ve never lacked confidence. At least that’s what people tell me.
Castle, however, frames it as a complete lost cause for incels. Due to their lack of physical attractiveness, the incel was bullied from childhood and as such have no confidence and cannot gain it because they aren’t physically attractive. Like the phrenologists of old, it all has to come back to down to the shape of your skull.
And what do I see as the purpose of this being? Easy. Castle’s reasoning for this, just like with all incels, is that you can’t take responsibility for the way your skeletal structure is, how tall you are or how long your limbs are. But you can take responsibility for how confident you are, how you approach people and how likable you are. Castle’s entire exercise in telling the reader that they simply lack physical attributes and as such aren’t at fault for the way the world perceives them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to blame mental issues like autism or depression on the individual. It’s obviously not their fault that they’re dealing with something like that. It is, however, up to the individual how they deal with those difficulties. If you’re an unlikable person, whatever ails you can’t be used as an excuse. If your diagnosis is making people avoid you, it’s up to you to change your approach. But this is the responsibility that Castle wants to free you from entirely.
Regarding physical attractiveness, I can’t even begin to understand how Castle can quantify it the way that is done in the book. Like, what we as humans have considered attractive have differed so much depending on time and geographical that I can’t see how we can reduce it to a man needing to be tall, having a square jaw and having a perfect limb-to-body ratio. Going from the assumption that Castle is a straight man, I would like to ask if Castle would, for example, find a woman with a mustache attractive like the men of early-20th century Persia? Or does Castle see a need to for a potential romantic partner to inform them about their blood type, as is the case in Japan to this day? A lot of Castle’s point go out the windows once you remember that “beautiful” isn’t based on a natural law, but rather on societal and individual perceptions. If it’s all down to standards that can change, so the idea of incels being condemned to all people finding them unattractive is based on close to nothing.
Also from the beginning, I would like to pin a comment on Castle’s statement about incels wanting intimacy, not sex. That might be true, but Castle doesn’t really do anything to help this argument.
What both Castle and the quoted incels are getting at is not intimacy overall, but very specifically romantic and sexual intimacy. And that seems to be jumping several crucial steps when it comes to how humans socialize. Sure, there are people who engage in a very casual hook-up culture, just like some people are swingers, but that isn’t most people. And based on Castle’s description, it certainly isn’t incels.
The steps that I see as skipped are the steps that create emotional intimacy. Those relationships that aren’t based on romantic feelings or physical attraction but are based on personal compatibility. This can be friends, colleagues, family or other associates. At least in my experience, the most romantic and/or sexual relationships start with the people you have other connections with. Maybe not your family, but you get the point. So, maybe the incel needs to join a club catered to their hobby, get to know the people they work with or, hell, they could join a religious group. Just do something to log off the computer, get outside and meet other people without the expectation to fall in love and fuck them. Castle does advice to get a hobby involving other people towards the end of the book, but it’s honestly too little too late.
Whether it’s on purpose or not, Castle is seemingly setting the readers of the Blackpill Theory up for failure by setting their aims to high. If you’re not the best at socializing and you aren’t confident, it’s bound to go wrong if you’re trying to pick up girls on a night out for a one-night stand.
I do also question Castle’s description of what motivates the incel. If it really is intense loneliness that tortures the incel so, why wouldn’t the advice be to, as the kids say, go out and touch grass? You don’t need a romantic partner to be less lonely, you need people in your life. But those people are absolutely ignored here. What matters is getting a romantic partner.
When it comes to online dating, I think there are several key factors that Castle misses or omits. For example, when it comes to women supposedly ranking men on dating apps as below average in looks, I wonder if it’s based on actual profile pictures or people that they met in person. Because, let me tell you, men don’t know how to take a proper profile picture. It’s no wonder you’re rated as unattractive if you have the sun behind you and stand with a fish or a four-wheeler. There’s a thing called “the male gaze” in media theory, and men do not know how to get out of framing everything as attractive to other men.
There’s also the general statistic about dating apps (and I guess online dating in general) is overwhelmingly populated by men. The last thing I saw was that there’s three men for every woman on apps like Tinder, Hinge and Bumble. So, I would argue that the selectiveness of women on dating apps can’t be used to extrapolate an overall tendency or trend. When the ratio isn’t roughly one-to-one like it is in the real world, it’s no wonder that you can be choosier.
And I guess that goes to Castle’s point about dating apps being a sort of hyperreality, where we chose without regard to social ramifications. And while there is a point to be made about not having to turn down people to their face, that point is not made by Castle. But I do want to comment on the whole thing about dating apps being even vaguely related to real life. Dating apps are, like seemingly all social networks, controlled by an algorithm, and in the case of dating apps it’s an algorithm that’s meant to keep you on the platform and paying for their services. Paradoxically, dating apps have a vested interest in keeping you single. Unless you find a very specific type of girl, you’re not going to keep paying for Tinder’s premium features once you find yourself with a significant other. I would therefore argue that that you can’t extrapolate your success rate on dating apps into the real world, like Castle seems to do.
The ironic thing about all of my critiques is that they would probably be disregarded as expressions of what Castle has named the “just world” - fallacy. Something that comes up at the beginning of the book and which Castle can seemingly throw away every single point that goes against the content of the Blackpill Theory. I know just how nice it is to have a catch-all rebuttal, but it isn’t really conductive to a constructive discourse around this topic.
What I don’t get is the ending of the book, where Castle, as seem to be the case of a lot of Incels, romanticize the short historical period in the 19th and 20th century where the nuclear family was the standard way for adults to arrange themselves. Apart from the obvious individual problems that this arrangement created, Castle’s love for the arrangement goes against a point made earlier in the book. Castle makes the point that incels wants to be the primary choice of the woman they desire. They don’t want to be settled for, as Castle put it. But isn’t this exactly what happens when a society pressures people into a strict monogamous structure? If Keith is the object of desire for the entire town’s female population, but Keith is dating Deborah, then the rest of the women have to settle for less.
So, monogamy in the style of 1950’s America doesn’t seem to solve the issues incels face according to Castle.
As a last critique I just want to point out that the book is terribly sourced, and the citations are all over the place. Not only do some of the more radical and extreme points doesn't have a citation, even if it should have. And the places where there is a citation, the citation doesn’t tend to say what Castle says it does.
I was originally going to give the book two stars, as it wasn’t as overtly hateful towards women as incel writing can often be. It’s obviously not a book that I think is good, nor do I think it’s worth reading, but part of me want to at least appreciate that Castle isn’t directly blaming women for the situation that incels find themselves in.
But then it hit me that the book is hateful. It’s just hateful towards you and me, the reader. If you’re having social issues, this will only make it worse. This book hates you and doesn’t want you to get better.
But what kind of framework is that? Castle argues that the social world should necessarily be understood as fundamentally deterministic. Your role and destiny in human society entirely predestined by the cards you’re dealt by nature from birth. In extension of this, Castle defines “incels” as people, predominantly men, who lives a life without physical and emotional intimacy against their wishes and desires. What in popular culture is additionally attributed to incels is disregarded as either imprecise or not descriptive of the incels way of being.
Although, the issues with the book begins to arise already at the definition of an incel. Castle starts the book out by saying that people can be or become incels due to physical issues, mental issues or both. But Castle quickly ditches the mental side of the issue and focuses solely on the physical attributes (or lack thereof) that defines incels. The reasons for this are rather clear, but I’ll return to this later.
The thing that goes through this book is something that a brainier person than I would probably call Hegelian recognition, with the incel taking up the position of the slave that mirrors themselves in the master, in this case taken up by the women. This description isn’t entirely precise, as the master in Hegel’s philosophy, despite the recognition, is an independent being. In the Blackpill Theory women have no such being. Don’t get me wrong, women and the preferences of women is talked about a lot, but at no point is a woman asked, or women surveyed about their place in the social framework of incels. Women as such exists not as being, but as objects of desire and as numbers in statistics.
So even if Castle prefaced the book with stating that it isn’t a scholastic text, Medieval scholasticism is the closest I can come to describing the Blackpill Theory. Like the monks, priests and ascetics of the 13th century, Castle is trying to understand and interpret the unknowable. The only difference is that the Christian God is here replaced by the feminine. But instead of beauty in the creation, Castle finds only misery in its deterministic natural clockwork. But considering the rather obvious materialistic existence of women, I don’t see Castle having the same excuses as Thomas Aquinas.
This sort of framing gave rise to a singular and very politically incorrect thought: Peter Sloterdijk once wrote, although the exact book escapes me, that rationalism as an epistemological framework is inherently autistic. Centering knowledge in individual thought removes both the social element of knowing and removes the individual from their emotional and instinctive life that isn’t possible to fit into rationalism. Castle’s fetishistic obsession on reducing complicated social phenomenon to numbers and naturalistic truisms seems to fit right into Sloterdijk’s observation. Instead of just talking to a woman or women, Castle just wants to talk about how many people that swipe left on Tinder analyzing context or the numbers themselves.
For that reason, it’s not that strange that incels are considered misogynists, when it comes to what Castle considers the fundamental recognition of the sexual revolution and the effect that it supposedly had on men’s ability to find an intimate partner. Due to incels centering themselves in the discourse, incels are putting themselves in a dictating position in regards to a previously socially subjugated group of people. That women now have the same sexual opportunities as men, with almost as few risks, is only considered in the light of how it has negatively effected incels. This line of argumentation has the same energy, If not the same comparable scale, to someone arguing that it was bad for the plantation owners that slavery was outlawed. I’m sorry to say this, but that point doesn’t really matter when the alternative would be to lessen the rights and/or abilities of a group or groups of people.
There’s also something to be said about the online spaces that incels find themselves in. It might just be a few of the incels that espouse misogynist sentiments, but it’s the majority of incels in those spaces that accept those talking points. If hating women isn’t a dealbreaker for you, then are you really better than the actual misogynists?
Let’s return to the beginning and talk about mentality and physical attributes. I will start by correcting myself a bit. Castle does bring up mentality from time to time, but it’s always subservient or secondary to physical attributes. And as such the mentality of incels is always playing second fiddle to how they may or may not look.
What I find fascinating about Castle’s analysis of looks and mentality is that it’s basically two-step circular reasoning. Physical attractiveness makes you confident in yourself, and being confident makes you more attractive. And as such the circle is closed. Castle argues that incels, due to their lack of physical attractiveness, can never enter this circle and experience the positive feedback loop. And that seems really weird to me. Why can’t you be confident in yourself even if you’re ugly? Like, I’m not good looking (there’s a reason I wear a gasmask in my profile picture, after all,) but I’ve never lacked confidence. At least that’s what people tell me.
Castle, however, frames it as a complete lost cause for incels. Due to their lack of physical attractiveness, the incel was bullied from childhood and as such have no confidence and cannot gain it because they aren’t physically attractive. Like the phrenologists of old, it all has to come back to down to the shape of your skull.
And what do I see as the purpose of this being? Easy. Castle’s reasoning for this, just like with all incels, is that you can’t take responsibility for the way your skeletal structure is, how tall you are or how long your limbs are. But you can take responsibility for how confident you are, how you approach people and how likable you are. Castle’s entire exercise in telling the reader that they simply lack physical attributes and as such aren’t at fault for the way the world perceives them.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not about to blame mental issues like autism or depression on the individual. It’s obviously not their fault that they’re dealing with something like that. It is, however, up to the individual how they deal with those difficulties. If you’re an unlikable person, whatever ails you can’t be used as an excuse. If your diagnosis is making people avoid you, it’s up to you to change your approach. But this is the responsibility that Castle wants to free you from entirely.
Regarding physical attractiveness, I can’t even begin to understand how Castle can quantify it the way that is done in the book. Like, what we as humans have considered attractive have differed so much depending on time and geographical that I can’t see how we can reduce it to a man needing to be tall, having a square jaw and having a perfect limb-to-body ratio. Going from the assumption that Castle is a straight man, I would like to ask if Castle would, for example, find a woman with a mustache attractive like the men of early-20th century Persia? Or does Castle see a need to for a potential romantic partner to inform them about their blood type, as is the case in Japan to this day? A lot of Castle’s point go out the windows once you remember that “beautiful” isn’t based on a natural law, but rather on societal and individual perceptions. If it’s all down to standards that can change, so the idea of incels being condemned to all people finding them unattractive is based on close to nothing.
Also from the beginning, I would like to pin a comment on Castle’s statement about incels wanting intimacy, not sex. That might be true, but Castle doesn’t really do anything to help this argument.
What both Castle and the quoted incels are getting at is not intimacy overall, but very specifically romantic and sexual intimacy. And that seems to be jumping several crucial steps when it comes to how humans socialize. Sure, there are people who engage in a very casual hook-up culture, just like some people are swingers, but that isn’t most people. And based on Castle’s description, it certainly isn’t incels.
The steps that I see as skipped are the steps that create emotional intimacy. Those relationships that aren’t based on romantic feelings or physical attraction but are based on personal compatibility. This can be friends, colleagues, family or other associates. At least in my experience, the most romantic and/or sexual relationships start with the people you have other connections with. Maybe not your family, but you get the point. So, maybe the incel needs to join a club catered to their hobby, get to know the people they work with or, hell, they could join a religious group. Just do something to log off the computer, get outside and meet other people without the expectation to fall in love and fuck them. Castle does advice to get a hobby involving other people towards the end of the book, but it’s honestly too little too late.
Whether it’s on purpose or not, Castle is seemingly setting the readers of the Blackpill Theory up for failure by setting their aims to high. If you’re not the best at socializing and you aren’t confident, it’s bound to go wrong if you’re trying to pick up girls on a night out for a one-night stand.
I do also question Castle’s description of what motivates the incel. If it really is intense loneliness that tortures the incel so, why wouldn’t the advice be to, as the kids say, go out and touch grass? You don’t need a romantic partner to be less lonely, you need people in your life. But those people are absolutely ignored here. What matters is getting a romantic partner.
When it comes to online dating, I think there are several key factors that Castle misses or omits. For example, when it comes to women supposedly ranking men on dating apps as below average in looks, I wonder if it’s based on actual profile pictures or people that they met in person. Because, let me tell you, men don’t know how to take a proper profile picture. It’s no wonder you’re rated as unattractive if you have the sun behind you and stand with a fish or a four-wheeler. There’s a thing called “the male gaze” in media theory, and men do not know how to get out of framing everything as attractive to other men.
There’s also the general statistic about dating apps (and I guess online dating in general) is overwhelmingly populated by men. The last thing I saw was that there’s three men for every woman on apps like Tinder, Hinge and Bumble. So, I would argue that the selectiveness of women on dating apps can’t be used to extrapolate an overall tendency or trend. When the ratio isn’t roughly one-to-one like it is in the real world, it’s no wonder that you can be choosier.
And I guess that goes to Castle’s point about dating apps being a sort of hyperreality, where we chose without regard to social ramifications. And while there is a point to be made about not having to turn down people to their face, that point is not made by Castle. But I do want to comment on the whole thing about dating apps being even vaguely related to real life. Dating apps are, like seemingly all social networks, controlled by an algorithm, and in the case of dating apps it’s an algorithm that’s meant to keep you on the platform and paying for their services. Paradoxically, dating apps have a vested interest in keeping you single. Unless you find a very specific type of girl, you’re not going to keep paying for Tinder’s premium features once you find yourself with a significant other. I would therefore argue that that you can’t extrapolate your success rate on dating apps into the real world, like Castle seems to do.
The ironic thing about all of my critiques is that they would probably be disregarded as expressions of what Castle has named the “just world” - fallacy. Something that comes up at the beginning of the book and which Castle can seemingly throw away every single point that goes against the content of the Blackpill Theory. I know just how nice it is to have a catch-all rebuttal, but it isn’t really conductive to a constructive discourse around this topic.
What I don’t get is the ending of the book, where Castle, as seem to be the case of a lot of Incels, romanticize the short historical period in the 19th and 20th century where the nuclear family was the standard way for adults to arrange themselves. Apart from the obvious individual problems that this arrangement created, Castle’s love for the arrangement goes against a point made earlier in the book. Castle makes the point that incels wants to be the primary choice of the woman they desire. They don’t want to be settled for, as Castle put it. But isn’t this exactly what happens when a society pressures people into a strict monogamous structure? If Keith is the object of desire for the entire town’s female population, but Keith is dating Deborah, then the rest of the women have to settle for less.
So, monogamy in the style of 1950’s America doesn’t seem to solve the issues incels face according to Castle.
As a last critique I just want to point out that the book is terribly sourced, and the citations are all over the place. Not only do some of the more radical and extreme points doesn't have a citation, even if it should have. And the places where there is a citation, the citation doesn’t tend to say what Castle says it does.
I was originally going to give the book two stars, as it wasn’t as overtly hateful towards women as incel writing can often be. It’s obviously not a book that I think is good, nor do I think it’s worth reading, but part of me want to at least appreciate that Castle isn’t directly blaming women for the situation that incels find themselves in.
But then it hit me that the book is hateful. It’s just hateful towards you and me, the reader. If you’re having social issues, this will only make it worse. This book hates you and doesn’t want you to get better.
May 7, 2024
Non-attractive men are oppressed and then blamed for it the same way homeless people or racial minorities are. Doesn't matter how much feminist literature is invented, the oppression towards incels is an obvious truth to anyone, it's simply an elephant in the room that can't be talked about. Feminism only exists because:
1. It's an ideology made for the perpetuation of inequalities, like anarcho-capitalism. Women are feminists because it benefits them, not because there's any truth to it.
2. Men are feminists because it benefits them in the dating market, or at least they hope so(most of the time it doesn't help them at all).
As long as the blackpill is not recognized in general, things like school bullying, young male depression and suicides will keep existing in large scale.
//
This book is not particularly amazing, it looks a bit amateurish and supposedly it was written with an incel audience in mind, but it turn out it doesn't say anything that someone who has been part of incel communities wouldn't know. It's more like 3.5 stars than 4, but closer to 4 than to 3.
A very interesting part is the one concerning normality. Someone who has 6/10 looks and enjoys hiking and playing football as hobbies is going to be benefited in relation to someone with the same looks, but who enjoys playing videogames and reading philosophy. What if someone has average looks, but is extremely smart and doesn't care about status? No one will date a guy like that. Dating benefits extremely high qualities in appearance, money and status, but it benefits mediocrity in personality, intelligence and tastes. Take this as you wish.
1. It's an ideology made for the perpetuation of inequalities, like anarcho-capitalism. Women are feminists because it benefits them, not because there's any truth to it.
2. Men are feminists because it benefits them in the dating market, or at least they hope so(most of the time it doesn't help them at all).
As long as the blackpill is not recognized in general, things like school bullying, young male depression and suicides will keep existing in large scale.
//
This book is not particularly amazing, it looks a bit amateurish and supposedly it was written with an incel audience in mind, but it turn out it doesn't say anything that someone who has been part of incel communities wouldn't know. It's more like 3.5 stars than 4, but closer to 4 than to 3.
A very interesting part is the one concerning normality. Someone who has 6/10 looks and enjoys hiking and playing football as hobbies is going to be benefited in relation to someone with the same looks, but who enjoys playing videogames and reading philosophy. What if someone has average looks, but is extremely smart and doesn't care about status? No one will date a guy like that. Dating benefits extremely high qualities in appearance, money and status, but it benefits mediocrity in personality, intelligence and tastes. Take this as you wish.
July 26, 2023
It is incredible that this author is trying to portray his writings as academic. His book is unnuanced, lacks research and makes contradictory statements. Not even to talk of the actual writing itself... I can't continue reading this, this is horrible.
August 10, 2025
;( zaimošana
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews