That anyone has had such an attitude is a very different question from how many have had the attitude at different times and how the internet and misogynistic media help to enculturate people to adopting these views. I'm sure you would agree that the problem isn't just that some people have souls made of gold or silver while others have souls made of copper, right?
this is a very confusing comment, genuinely i'm unsure what you're trying to say.
i'm recasting the 'blame' for incels on patriarchy at large, not confining it to pornography. the incel movement is a reaction to men not being able to as easily coerce women into sex, not a consequence of seeing skin on your iphone. if accessible pornography were such a powerful force for patriarchy, surely its emergence would harkened more than a handful of stochastic terrorists
If you think pornography as it exists in our society can be reduced to "seeing skin", there's no point in talking to you further. You know, aren't you one of the types who always brings up (correctly) how the prevalence of e.g. choking in porn has lead to young men emulating these acts (often without warning, much less consent) both on the women who had freely consented to sex and those who had been paid to consent to sex? And that this has produced many injuries and occasionally even death?
If porn is something someone can be addicted to, something that has medically diagnosable effects that impact people's real-life relationships and cause sexual dysfunctions, can we still reduce it this way?
Some symptoms are more widespread than others, and incels by definition are a small and non-reproducing subset of the population that exists on the margins of society. It only makes sense that other strata react differently.
I'm not trying to take shit away from you or tell you not to use it, do as you will, but let's attempt to maintain a measure of intellectual honesty.
but let's attempt to maintain a measure of intellectual honesty.
buddy we are on a goddamn internet forum dedicated to posting pictures of a pig with shit on its balls to give liberals and fascists aneurysms, remove that damn american yardstick from your ass
what copout you reddit brained drongo? You're pontificating and shitting all over the place as if you dont have to respect the damn people you talk to. And yes its a yard stick because you're an arrogant yankee doodle dandy bastard. People these days smfh.
When people have something of a serious conversation and someone tries to derail specifically one side by saying "this is a shitposting forum lel" it's a copout attempting to use social pressure to make the other person too self-conscious to continue when in fact that statement is the social outlier and not the rest of the conversation. But then this is the other standard move, asking incredibly bad-faith questions like both of us were born yesterday.
what le fuck are you talking about sonny jim im saying it to one "side" (you) because you're the only one being an arrogant yankee doodle dandy bastard who has forgotten that hes on a damn shitposting forum and is behaving in a pretentious reddit-like manner, im not advocating for any side in this discussion other than you excavating the bucket of yardsticks from your anus or fleeing back to leddit where you will be more welcome
Is this a bit account? Anyway, this is just how I communicate. I'm sorry that assholes on Reddit have given you such a strong pavlovian reaction to whatever it is about that, but I only extend that sympathy so far considering the monumental level of presumption you continue to swing at me with.
oh for christs sake mate dont you know that leddit is a well acknowledged shibboleth to point to the myriad of asinine, pseudointellectual, arrogant, funko-pop loving, marvel watching, passive aggressive, soylent-slurping, dunning-kruger americanisms of which you personify that so pollutes my beloved internet? I know very well thats "just" how you communicate because your inherent nature is that of a terminally moronic yank who is unable to post like a human being, with respect and dignity towards others, just like how your people behave in the world and why everyone bloody hates you lot.
idk, I think you're being a lot more hostile than I am and bringing a lot of assumptions in.
As an aside, a shibboleth is more like a password, you were looking for "shorthand". The shibboleth here is whatever you saw in my communication that made you decide I was this person you've constructed
Oh so you're not an arrogant pontificating insufferable passive aggressive pseudointellectual american? Sorry, my kind gentlesir, but I didn't need to construct anything and my assumptions are based on cold, hard, girthy facts:
"this is just how I communicate" - exactly, its your goddamn right as an american citizen to be a disrespectful piece of shit and everyone else who is "offended" should suck it up, the same damn selfish mentality behind the system currently rotting the planet.
"there's no point in talking to you further." - fuck do you think you are hombre? As if people should be honored to talk to you, what a pontificating pseud
"but let's attempt to maintain a measure of intellectual honesty." - fuck right off man, as if you have the damn credentials to talk down to someone else in this way on a bloody pigposting website using some imagined form of intellectual superiority, jesus christ look around you and come back down to reality
All in all this sort of reaction to someone who was engaging with you patiently and in good faith is fucking mental, incredibly passive aggressive, disrespectful, bratty, and out of the damn left field. Even if you do have a degree, you're one of those pseuds who thinks that being smarter gives you an excuse to behave in a shitty manner to people, despite them engaging with you politely and in good faith, just because you think they* are dumber than you. You're a pathetic basket case, mate, really need a bit more self awareness yeah? Until then you bloody well deserve the hostility that you get. Damn shame that you shit where you eat like this, just that where you are shitting is also my beloved bear website and I'm not happy about that.
everyone's always "what about choking" like porn invented it yeah, no-one ever got hurt from heresay allegations about sexacts and print media. people weren't sexual ignorants before you could stream porn, your great grandmother heard of all kinds of kinks & fetishes in her time, and probably engaged in a few
the range of activities someone can get psychologically addicted to is so wide i think it requires some motivated reasoning to take a specific indictment seriously. if you can be addicted to normal activities, even activities viewed as healthy, i cannot entertain someone becoming addicted to something as sufficient evidence for it being bad.
everyone's always "what about choking" like porn invented it
No? What it does is aggressively promote and reinforce certain images and ideas. It's a society of the spectacle thing, encouraging people to relate to the world not in terms of material reality but its relation to media representations.
yeah, no-one ever got hurt from heresay allegations about sexacts and print media.
???
people weren't sexual ignorants before you could stream porn, your great grandmother heard of all kinds of kinks & fetishes in her time, and probably engaged in a few
Alright, this is a complete tangent -- I chose choking in part because it's an obvious thing, unlike some fetishes -- but you're again completely obfuscating the reality here. The sheer volume of fetish material someone like myself has been exposed to versus the average person my age two generations ago are wildly different. Yeah, there was basic BDSM and common paraphilias and so on, but unless you are a researcher of some kind you are basically dependent on the fetishes you experience, what you hear about from word of mouth, and what you get from the media. That accessibility of information in that last category has intensified an inconceivable amount with the internet.
More significantly -- and this is something observed again and again in other contexts, including incels specifically -- the internet lets people at the margins of society find like-minded (or impressionable) people and congregate where otherwise they might be under a much greater pressure to assimilate to the local culture more thoroughly. This is not strictly a bad thing for many obvious reasons, but it's also created reactionary identity groups like incels and other sexually-backward cliques who have been emboldened in various ways to commit violence against women.
Yes, you can find some sort of approximation of PUA material in books in the '80s and even some grifters who assembled in-person meetings, but that's nothing like the contemporary redpill cults in terms of sheer numbers.
the range of activities someone can get psychologically addicted to is so wide i think it requires some motivated reasoning to take a specific indictment seriously. if you can be addicted to normal activities, even activities viewed as healthy, i cannot entertain someone becoming addicted to something as sufficient evidence for it being bad.
People can develop addictions to healthy things; I think the most famous example is exercise, which is kind of a rare addiction afaik but whatever. That said, addiction does not just fall from the aether, it needs a basis. A lot of the stranger addictions you hear about have much more to do with that person's pre-existing neurodivergence than to a viable propensity among most people. Exercise is addicting because it can be intense, exciting, done at a regular basis, ties in to body image and self esteem, etc. It has a confluence of properties that make it easy to happen. General internet addiction is typically tied to the extreme lack of effort, relatively high level of stimulation, and again very regular use. Pornography, well, I think it's about the same as a split between the general internet addiction and a masturbation addiction (oh yeah, masturbating at least once a week is healthy in men, so that one counts for the earlier thing), but stands out for the way that it impacts relationships, e.g. often the sufferer is so desensitized to arousing imagery that they find it more difficult or impossible to get an erection by normal means.
I'm sure that porn addicts existed in the days when mags were all one could access, but I'm almost as certain that it was much rarer because the sheer volume and breadth of material one can access now without even leaving their bedroom is just incomparable to previous states.
the incel movement is a reaction to men not being able to as easily coerce women into sex
What creates the situation where they "need" to do that, to get laid in the first place?
That's what dominates my thinking on the matter.
Granted, I'm also starting from the assumption that I don't think you're gonna make a society where people don't want sex, or don't get mad about not being able to engage in it. I do genuinely think that this is a hardwired thing, and even if it isn't, at a social level if you don't at least have the opportunity to be able to find a partner (regardless of whether you choose to exercise it), then you are not really anything more than a drone, or fundamentally a servile being in the context of whatever society you're in. You would exist exclusively to materially furnish & support the lives & families of people who are, in that respect at least, your social superior, and I don't expect people to not be mad about that.
Edit: At the very least, I think the things that I'm saying are accurate in so far as they describe dynamics that exist within society as it currently exists, anyways.
What creates the situation where they "need" to do that, to get laid in the first place?
patriarchy. it's not about actual sexual fulfillment, it's about the unfulfilled societal expectation they have that they should have power over other people. they see/imagine men with that either in a glorified past or fictional perception of the present, and it causes them distress that they are not party to that. normal people not having sex might be disappointed or sad about it, they might even be upset at a specific person (these still do tie into patriarchy to an extent),
but what makes an incel is laying the blame on the entire body of society and supporting reactionary policies that will make it easier for them to live the dream of -owning- someone to have sex with. many of these people literally have sex it just doesn't count for them because it wasn't under a socially enforceable permanent basis like a traditional patriarchal marriage
many of these people literally have sex it just doesn't count for them because it wasn't under a socially enforceable permanent basis like a traditional patriarchal marriage
As someone who has spent a lot of time studying one of the larger incel communities and its offshoots, this is false. Several of them have had sex before but have no access to it anymore, and some might not count paying a prostitute, but a casual hookup or a girlfriend absolutely do count to the vast majority of them and most of them pine after it, though of course most have as their "ultimate" desire to have a wife for the reasons you describe.
patriarchy. it's not about actual sexual fulfillment, it's about the unfulfilled societal expectation they have that they should have power over other people.
I mean I agree with the point of origin, but I disagree with the nature of the expectation, and also I think the entire framework of what any of this even means.
I don't agree that Patriarchy is a system which necessarily privileges all men over all women, and exists to allow the former to exert power over the latter. It is a system which exists to safeguard & enforce the power of Patriarchs, which are a very specific kind of man, one which has access to property & social standing such that he is able to leverage both into power over all others. That's the core of the thing, from what I understand of history & the development of class society, and that's what defines how it functions.
In the case of how this relates to women, yeah it's very much like you said. The goal is to use wealth & social position to put women into a state of dependency, & to use that dependency to force them to serve the sexual desires of the patriarch in question. With regards to other men though; the goal is not actually to cooperate with them to gain power over women, not to any degree more than what he absolutely has to at any rate. No, the goal there, or the ideal situation is to also own the other men; to immiserate them, to force them to work solely to support him & his progeny, and to prevent them from being able to form their own families if for no other reason than pure spite.
You look at guys like Errol Musk, Epstein, the Billionaire Quiverfull freaks, and hell even most of the insane Alpha Influencer Grifters out there, and you tell me that they don't fundamentally think in that kind of fashion. That their goals aren't congruent with what I'm describing.
The ideal situation of Patriarchy is one rich bastard with land, in control of a harem of 100 wife-concubines, with 10,000 eunuchized slaves supporting all of them. That is actually as true today as it was in the bronze age. It just has to be abstracted a hell of a lot more through market forces, and the false choices presented by consumer society. Because if they didn't do that, then there might be a very good chance that they would end up in a situation with their heads on a block.
But yeah, this is what forms the basis of my thoughts about anything relating to this subject.
someone to have sex with. many of these people literally have sex it just doesn't count for them because it wasn't under a socially enforceable permanent basis like a traditional patriarchal marriage
I don't agree that Patriarchy is a system which necessarily privileges all men over all women, and exists to allow the former to exert power over the latter. It is a system which exists to safeguard & enforce the power of Patriarchs, which are a very specific kind of man
That's the issue. With the individualism and free market ideology of American capitalism, every man has the capability of seeing themselves as a patriarch.
The anger that violent male (primarily) incels have is derived directly from the contradiction that patriarchy only protects the patriarchs, and they believe themselves to be patriarchs. To them, in their mind, they're owed something for being a white man. When that belief comes head to head with the fact that they also have to interact with the wage labor system like the rest of us, and their primary social class isn't patriarch, but proletarian, they either resolve that contradiction by casting off their patriarchal beliefs, or doubling down on them.
I've often wondered if a lack of age-appropriate socialization with girls is why some boys grow up to be incels. I had a childhood friend who had pretty much the same school social circles, non-school social circles, hobbies, church, you name it. But he was an only child with no female cousins. I have a younger sister and a ton of younger female cousins. He grew up with some strange ideas about girls. I remember constantly telling him - right from elementary school - when he was being weird about them.
For much of my teen years I only had female peer socialization once or twice a week. By my mid-20s, the slight majority of my friends have been women.
So YMMV, although I suspect I might be the exception. Or maybe there's lots of factors- personal gender identity, background culture, family composition, parenting style, sexuality...
I had a friend who had gone to boys only schools all his life, doesn't have any female relatives other than his mother. One time he sat down and asked me how I talk to girls so easily. I had to explain to him that girls are like boys in that they are human beings. I've never once seen him talk to a girl. He's 20
I grew up mainly around my mom & my sister, but that has not really done anything to improve my ability to relate to, or engage with women on anything.
I did also spend like 90% of my non-school time shut up in my room, playing videogames, cause no friends & my mom drank a lot.
I seriously think porn is largely responsible for the incel movement and that has resulted in actual terrorist attacks
people with these attitudes have always existed, but a century ago they arranged/pressured a marriage on someone who had little recourse to refuse
That anyone has had such an attitude is a very different question from how many have had the attitude at different times and how the internet and misogynistic media help to enculturate people to adopting these views. I'm sure you would agree that the problem isn't just that some people have souls made of gold or silver while others have souls made of copper, right?
this is a very confusing comment, genuinely i'm unsure what you're trying to say.
i'm recasting the 'blame' for incels on patriarchy at large, not confining it to pornography. the incel movement is a reaction to men not being able to as easily coerce women into sex, not a consequence of seeing skin on your iphone. if accessible pornography were such a powerful force for patriarchy, surely its emergence would harkened more than a handful of stochastic terrorists
If you think pornography as it exists in our society can be reduced to "seeing skin", there's no point in talking to you further. You know, aren't you one of the types who always brings up (correctly) how the prevalence of e.g. choking in porn has lead to young men emulating these acts (often without warning, much less consent) both on the women who had freely consented to sex and those who had been paid to consent to sex? And that this has produced many injuries and occasionally even death?
If porn is something someone can be addicted to, something that has medically diagnosable effects that impact people's real-life relationships and cause sexual dysfunctions, can we still reduce it this way?
Some symptoms are more widespread than others, and incels by definition are a small and non-reproducing subset of the population that exists on the margins of society. It only makes sense that other strata react differently.
I'm not trying to take shit away from you or tell you not to use it, do as you will, but let's attempt to maintain a measure of intellectual honesty.
buddy we are on a goddamn internet forum dedicated to posting pictures of a pig with shit on its balls to give liberals and fascists aneurysms, remove that damn american yardstick from your ass
This is always a pathetic copout.
Also aren't meter sticks longer?
what copout you reddit brained drongo? You're pontificating and shitting all over the place as if you dont have to respect the damn people you talk to. And yes its a yard stick because you're an arrogant yankee doodle dandy bastard. People these days smfh.
When people have something of a serious conversation and someone tries to derail specifically one side by saying "this is a shitposting forum lel" it's a copout attempting to use social pressure to make the other person too self-conscious to continue when in fact that statement is the social outlier and not the rest of the conversation. But then this is the other standard move, asking incredibly bad-faith questions like both of us were born yesterday.
what le fuck are you talking about sonny jim im saying it to one "side" (you) because you're the only one being an arrogant yankee doodle dandy bastard who has forgotten that hes on a damn shitposting forum and is behaving in a pretentious reddit-like manner, im not advocating for any side in this discussion other than you excavating the bucket of yardsticks from your anus or fleeing back to leddit where you will be more welcome
Is this a bit account? Anyway, this is just how I communicate. I'm sorry that assholes on Reddit have given you such a strong pavlovian reaction to whatever it is about that, but I only extend that sympathy so far considering the monumental level of presumption you continue to swing at me with.
oh for christs sake mate dont you know that leddit is a well acknowledged shibboleth to point to the myriad of asinine, pseudointellectual, arrogant, funko-pop loving, marvel watching, passive aggressive, soylent-slurping, dunning-kruger americanisms of which you personify that so pollutes my beloved internet? I know very well thats "just" how you communicate because your inherent nature is that of a terminally moronic yank who is unable to post like a human being, with respect and dignity towards others, just like how your people behave in the world and why everyone bloody hates you lot.
idk, I think you're being a lot more hostile than I am and bringing a lot of assumptions in.
As an aside, a shibboleth is more like a password, you were looking for "shorthand". The shibboleth here is whatever you saw in my communication that made you decide I was this person you've constructed
Oh so you're not an arrogant pontificating insufferable passive aggressive pseudointellectual american? Sorry, my kind gentlesir, but I didn't need to construct anything and my assumptions are based on cold, hard, girthy facts:
"this is just how I communicate" - exactly, its your goddamn right as an american citizen to be a disrespectful piece of shit and everyone else who is "offended" should suck it up, the same damn selfish mentality behind the system currently rotting the planet.
"there's no point in talking to you further." - fuck do you think you are hombre? As if people should be honored to talk to you, what a pontificating pseud
"but let's attempt to maintain a measure of intellectual honesty." - fuck right off man, as if you have the damn credentials to talk down to someone else in this way on a bloody pigposting website using some imagined form of intellectual superiority, jesus christ look around you and come back down to reality
All in all this sort of reaction to someone who was engaging with you patiently and in good faith is fucking mental, incredibly passive aggressive, disrespectful, bratty, and out of the damn left field. Even if you do have a degree, you're one of those pseuds who thinks that being smarter gives you an excuse to behave in a shitty manner to people, despite them engaging with you politely and in good faith, just because you think they* are dumber than you. You're a pathetic basket case, mate, really need a bit more self awareness yeah? Until then you bloody well deserve the hostility that you get. Damn shame that you shit where you eat like this, just that where you are shitting is also my beloved bear website and I'm not happy about that.
everyone's always "what about choking" like porn invented it
yeah, no-one ever got hurt from heresay allegations about sexacts and print media. people weren't sexual ignorants before you could stream porn, your great grandmother heard of all kinds of kinks & fetishes in her time, and probably engaged in a few
the range of activities someone can get psychologically addicted to is so wide i think it requires some motivated reasoning to take a specific indictment seriously. if you can be addicted to normal activities, even activities viewed as healthy, i cannot entertain someone becoming addicted to something as sufficient evidence for it being bad.
No? What it does is aggressively promote and reinforce certain images and ideas. It's a society of the spectacle thing, encouraging people to relate to the world not in terms of material reality but its relation to media representations.
???
Alright, this is a complete tangent -- I chose choking in part because it's an obvious thing, unlike some fetishes -- but you're again completely obfuscating the reality here. The sheer volume of fetish material someone like myself has been exposed to versus the average person my age two generations ago are wildly different. Yeah, there was basic BDSM and common paraphilias and so on, but unless you are a researcher of some kind you are basically dependent on the fetishes you experience, what you hear about from word of mouth, and what you get from the media. That accessibility of information in that last category has intensified an inconceivable amount with the internet.
More significantly -- and this is something observed again and again in other contexts, including incels specifically -- the internet lets people at the margins of society find like-minded (or impressionable) people and congregate where otherwise they might be under a much greater pressure to assimilate to the local culture more thoroughly. This is not strictly a bad thing for many obvious reasons, but it's also created reactionary identity groups like incels and other sexually-backward cliques who have been emboldened in various ways to commit violence against women.
Yes, you can find some sort of approximation of PUA material in books in the '80s and even some grifters who assembled in-person meetings, but that's nothing like the contemporary redpill cults in terms of sheer numbers.
People can develop addictions to healthy things; I think the most famous example is exercise, which is kind of a rare addiction afaik but whatever. That said, addiction does not just fall from the aether, it needs a basis. A lot of the stranger addictions you hear about have much more to do with that person's pre-existing neurodivergence than to a viable propensity among most people. Exercise is addicting because it can be intense, exciting, done at a regular basis, ties in to body image and self esteem, etc. It has a confluence of properties that make it easy to happen. General internet addiction is typically tied to the extreme lack of effort, relatively high level of stimulation, and again very regular use. Pornography, well, I think it's about the same as a split between the general internet addiction and a masturbation addiction (oh yeah, masturbating at least once a week is healthy in men, so that one counts for the earlier thing), but stands out for the way that it impacts relationships, e.g. often the sufferer is so desensitized to arousing imagery that they find it more difficult or impossible to get an erection by normal means.
I'm sure that porn addicts existed in the days when mags were all one could access, but I'm almost as certain that it was much rarer because the sheer volume and breadth of material one can access now without even leaving their bedroom is just incomparable to previous states.
What creates the situation where they "need" to do that, to get laid in the first place?
That's what dominates my thinking on the matter.
Granted, I'm also starting from the assumption that I don't think you're gonna make a society where people don't want sex, or don't get mad about not being able to engage in it. I do genuinely think that this is a hardwired thing, and even if it isn't, at a social level if you don't at least have the opportunity to be able to find a partner (regardless of whether you choose to exercise it), then you are not really anything more than a drone, or fundamentally a servile being in the context of whatever society you're in. You would exist exclusively to materially furnish & support the lives & families of people who are, in that respect at least, your social superior, and I don't expect people to not be mad about that.
Edit: At the very least, I think the things that I'm saying are accurate in so far as they describe dynamics that exist within society as it currently exists, anyways.
patriarchy. it's not about actual sexual fulfillment, it's about the unfulfilled societal expectation they have that they should have power over other people. they see/imagine men with that either in a glorified past or fictional perception of the present, and it causes them distress that they are not party to that. normal people not having sex might be disappointed or sad about it, they might even be upset at a specific person (these still do tie into patriarchy to an extent),
but what makes an incel is laying the blame on the entire body of society and supporting reactionary policies that will make it easier for them to live the dream of -owning- someone to have sex with. many of these people literally have sex it just doesn't count for them because it wasn't under a socially enforceable permanent basis like a traditional patriarchal marriage
As someone who has spent a lot of time studying one of the larger incel communities and its offshoots, this is false. Several of them have had sex before but have no access to it anymore, and some might not count paying a prostitute, but a casual hookup or a girlfriend absolutely do count to the vast majority of them and most of them pine after it, though of course most have as their "ultimate" desire to have a wife for the reasons you describe.
I mean I agree with the point of origin, but I disagree with the nature of the expectation, and also I think the entire framework of what any of this even means.
I don't agree that Patriarchy is a system which necessarily privileges all men over all women, and exists to allow the former to exert power over the latter. It is a system which exists to safeguard & enforce the power of Patriarchs, which are a very specific kind of man, one which has access to property & social standing such that he is able to leverage both into power over all others. That's the core of the thing, from what I understand of history & the development of class society, and that's what defines how it functions.
In the case of how this relates to women, yeah it's very much like you said. The goal is to use wealth & social position to put women into a state of dependency, & to use that dependency to force them to serve the sexual desires of the patriarch in question. With regards to other men though; the goal is not actually to cooperate with them to gain power over women, not to any degree more than what he absolutely has to at any rate. No, the goal there, or the ideal situation is to also own the other men; to immiserate them, to force them to work solely to support him & his progeny, and to prevent them from being able to form their own families if for no other reason than pure spite.
You look at guys like Errol Musk, Epstein, the Billionaire Quiverfull freaks, and hell even most of the insane Alpha Influencer Grifters out there, and you tell me that they don't fundamentally think in that kind of fashion. That their goals aren't congruent with what I'm describing.
The ideal situation of Patriarchy is one rich bastard with land, in control of a harem of 100 wife-concubines, with 10,000 eunuchized slaves supporting all of them. That is actually as true today as it was in the bronze age. It just has to be abstracted a hell of a lot more through market forces, and the false choices presented by consumer society. Because if they didn't do that, then there might be a very good chance that they would end up in a situation with their heads on a block.
But yeah, this is what forms the basis of my thoughts about anything relating to this subject.
Well I don't, so there you are.
That's the issue. With the individualism and free market ideology of American capitalism, every man has the capability of seeing themselves as a patriarch.
The anger that violent male (primarily) incels have is derived directly from the contradiction that patriarchy only protects the patriarchs, and they believe themselves to be patriarchs. To them, in their mind, they're owed something for being a white man. When that belief comes head to head with the fact that they also have to interact with the wage labor system like the rest of us, and their primary social class isn't patriarch, but proletarian, they either resolve that contradiction by casting off their patriarchal beliefs, or doubling down on them.
I've often wondered if a lack of age-appropriate socialization with girls is why some boys grow up to be incels. I had a childhood friend who had pretty much the same school social circles, non-school social circles, hobbies, church, you name it. But he was an only child with no female cousins. I have a younger sister and a ton of younger female cousins. He grew up with some strange ideas about girls. I remember constantly telling him - right from elementary school - when he was being weird about them.
For much of my teen years I only had female peer socialization once or twice a week. By my mid-20s, the slight majority of my friends have been women.
So YMMV, although I suspect I might be the exception. Or maybe there's lots of factors- personal gender identity, background culture, family composition, parenting style, sexuality...
I had a friend who had gone to boys only schools all his life, doesn't have any female relatives other than his mother. One time he sat down and asked me how I talk to girls so easily. I had to explain to him that girls are like boys in that they are human beings. I've never once seen him talk to a girl. He's 20
I grew up mainly around my mom & my sister, but that has not really done anything to improve my ability to relate to, or engage with women on anything.
I did also spend like 90% of my non-school time shut up in my room, playing videogames, cause no friends & my mom drank a lot.