With choices like that it's better to just remain single. This is why you have groups like MGTOW. The only confusion is whether this type of logic is taking a direction of "incel" or MGTOW. The MGTOW camp would say that the "incel" category is an illusion because if you are describing something that fits 70-80% of guys, and that you are making a choice not to settle for damage goods or scraps and you are a 7 guy, then you are not really incel but MGTOW. You are making a rational choice based on the market and you are not seeing any value for the goods. Nobody can force anyone to buy if the goods don't have value to the buyer at the price that its asking. Also, if something describes a large enough amount of guys, then incel loses validity as a special category because there is simply too much people that fit that category, and you can't even envy guys who have someone if they are subjected to humiliating or degrading terms for being in a relationship. It's just another part of the same coin. Some people don't want to buy into a bad deal, others are too desperate that any deal is better than none at all even if its a bad one. But either way a choice is involved and I don't think being a single person is a true incel with that level of an option as they are both hard choices.
A brief view of the numbers:
At least 1/3 of all young adults will get at least some education at a 4 year public university. Half will be enrolled in some 4 year college or univ public or private. Most of these guys are relatively intelligent (average or above), in better health than average, and generally from middle class or wealthier families. In years past, these groups made up the bulk of the middle and leadership class. It is these men who have the best chances of landing a desirable mate: girlfriends and wives.
Below that, life prospects are significantly more uncertain: another third of men will also enroll in some sort of trade school or 2 year school. Maybe 10-20% will not graduate from high school or not attend college. Their life prospects are the worst although ironically it is these lower economic classes which reproduce at the highest rate.
Having said that, in retrospect, an astonishing percentage of my college mates went without girlriends at all. Same for a significant percentage of women. This means a very meaningful but unknown percentage of young adults 18-23 are largely sexless. Traditional girlfriend/boyfriend relationships were relatively rare. A lot of very hot gals never had a boyfriend. It was fvcking astonishing now that I think back about it.
Certain cliques were more sexually active and successful: athletes and greeks and certain cliques that formed around clubs, sports or even high school alma mater which had large enrollments. Otherwise, the independents largely scattered to the wind after class without clear cut channels for meeting a mate.
I don't think it's an exaggeration that the typical person has no more than single digit sex partners as young adults prior to marriage. This seems to conform to what I saw in college. It also seems to reflect the reality of post-college younger adults. For example, on Halloween weekend I met a lot of people who say that they had not gone out on the weekend the entire year. This was their first and only night out.
This notion that people are fcking all over the place post women's lib and post sexual revolution has not materialized at all. If anything, it's the exact opposite: men's prospects for sex, dating and marriage have largely collapsed. Incel and MGTOW are a real thing.
Women don't need men anymore to survive financially and a significant minority of women make more money their male age peers.
A significant percentage of men are being reduced to brown nosers, weasels, beggars, low status players in the dating market. A significant percentage of men are shut out almost completely.
The only thing that has kept western societies from total revolution is PORNOGRAPHY.
