I don't see any problems with that kind of clothes in a hot summer day.
Sunbathing in public beaches etc. is totally normal behaviour.
Before the sexual revolution, it was considered provocative and inappropriate for women to walk around half naked and sunbathe in public. There are not even any health benefits to the practice; it just makes women age faster and increases their risk of skin cancer. Any sensible person who opposes women's sexual liberation considers it degenerate behavior. And women who engage in degenerate behavior deserve to be hated.
https://archive.org/details/b20442580
Strong evidence that sluts should be despised for the good of society.
We simply disagree on the effects of sex ratios.
It would make a difference. There wasn't an incel problem after WW2 in European Soviet Union.
The sexual revolution did not happen in Russia
until the 1960s. Stalin made no-fault divorce and abortion illegal in the late 1930s, encouraged monogamy and took away some of the rights that Lenin had given to women. By doing so, he saved Russia from demographic collapse. Most Russian women were still monogamous and conservative after WW2.
As I said, in a society where extramarital sex is uncommon and where women are encouraged to get married, the gender ratio does matter. The problem is that we do not live in such a society today.
You really have to exclude old women living alone (because their husband died because females live a few years longer on average), because they are not in the marketplace. Sex ratio of population of reproductive age is what matters. It's even more bad than, say, sex ratio of all under 50 year olds. Men are still active, want sex and can have children until they are dead, while old women are not able to have children, do not want sex and are not active seeking sex. Many men that have a girlfriend still take part in the marketplace while a successful, beautiful 10/10 woman is satisfied having only one partner concurrently.
There are areas in New York where young, never-married, single women
outnumber men in the same demographic almost 2 to 1. I highly doubt dating is easier there for below average men. It's propably just normies and chads that benefit from such a situation.
Female promiscuity + serial monogamy = de facto polygamy. Some men have dozens of sex partners and others have none at all. Attractive men often marry and divorce multiple young women in their lifetimes. Women today have no reason or incentive to lower their standards and settle down. This is not going to change if large numbers of men disappear. It will only change if women's rights are restricted.
"So killing off large numbers of random men would change nothing for incels"
It would reduce the number of men that are incels at a given time. All research and common sense support this.
All evidence suggests that fewer young women are interested in marriage and in long-term relationships. If many women refuse to settle down and lower their standards in a society where there is a male surplus, why do you think that would change if many men died? Logic suggests that they would still not lower their standards. This is not the 1950s where every woman is searching for a man to marry. Women will only lower their standards beyond a certain point if they desperately need a man to provide for them and protect them and have no other ways of getting sex.
Are you using the word incel as a synonym for truecel?
I'm using it to refer to men who are significantly below average in attractiveness.
