I've had plenty of sexual experience, that's not the issue here. I've had women approach me for sex, especially in my University days. (1) Want to have coffee? (2) Hey, want to hang in my dorm? (3) Hey, let's fuck. Boom. Multiple times.

I also knew guys who had to "try hard" to get dates, show their personalities, buy dinner, listen to whining, etc. etc.

I think that the incel taxonomy of "chads", "betas" and "incels" is fairly accurate---some men are sex objects, some men are providers who will be given sex in exchange for personality/$$$/etc. and some men are simply not sexually desirable, especially because there are usually betas who are attractive available, there is no need to settle for a 1/10 incel, converting him into a beta, when you can get a 3/10 beta who has been groomed by multiple females.

I mean, the thing they don't really go into is how females collectively manage male betas by giving them some sex, tho not as much as sex object men. This helps provide a pool of betas for when they want to settle down, who have been groomed for submission and service to women, in exchange for sex. For example, paying for dates, listening to her drone on and on about her hopes, dreams, etc.

I think the most frustrating thing for people here is that these guys have developed their own taxonomy, and it doesn't reflect anyone in the good light they would like to think they are properly shown in. It shows people as mechanistic, concerned with predictable features (looks in chad, money/personality in betas, total lack of looks in incels).

I am saying that what they say looks fairly accurate to me---but I'd be just squeaking into what they call the "Chad" category.

You also haven't addressed what I said at all---if reproduction is the drive at work, being a beta means you're reproducing not on the basis of who you are but what you can do. That's an awful lot to internalize, that you're not desirable in yourself, but, for example, you're an accountant who has value because we happen to have invented tax laws, which employ accountants. It's pretty obvious that such a person has very little genetic value in the long-run; his genetic value is contingent on the house of cards called society. So I do think that it would probably, if a beta has to rely on provision and personality to reproduce, that his personality would keep him from becoming aware of the truth of the situation---he'd be much better off thinking 'I'm just like chad, we both have great personalities,' rather than thinking 'I am nothing like chad, women want chad because he is chad, women only want me because of my social function and submissiveness.'

Chad, on the other hand, with a strong, tall, athletic frame, is well-suited for a hunter-gatherer existence. He can survive in society, and does much better as a tall man, too. So either mode of existence is fine for Chad. But for the low-quality short male, especially an ugly male, all that provides him with opportunities is "society."

I mean, just look at primate societies. The incel account is far closer to primate society than what people suggest.