Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn’t necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven’t ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don’t hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
Im pretty sure an incel blames women for not being able to get a relationship.
Its the change in mental framing from “maybe i should work on myself” or “i just havent had the right opportunity” to more of a “women hold too much power over me and are playing with me” or “ive done everything right, women owe me this”Wikipedia sums it up better than i can:
Description of incels
The subculture is often characterized by deep resentment, hatred, hostility, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, blaming of women and the sexually successful for their situation (which is often seen as predetermined due to biological determinism, evolutionary genetics or a rigged game), a sense of futility and nihilism, rape culture, and the endorsement of sexual and nonsexual violence against women and sexually active people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
So, unless you find yourself blaming/resenting women, then you arent an incel. Your still just figuring things out like tge rest of us!
The term “Incel” started out as just meaning “involuntarily celibate”, referring to men who, like you and I, have struggled to form meaningful relationships with women.
The term actually originated in forums that were used as like a support group for men who were feeling alone, isolated, and alienated.
Unfortunately, if you get enough guys like that together, they might start riling eachother up and convincing each other that it’s not their fault, it’s the women’s fault. Remember, the one common trait among all these guys was a lack of ability to connect with a woman.
The word was coined by a woman and the support network she set up was for men and women. Until the space got taken over by bitter men blaming women for all their troubles and, here we are.
Came here to point this out, thanks for doing so.
For all others reading. This is the correct origin. It literally had actual, wholesome origins. That like almost everything, was ruined by selfish, entitled misogynist.
Hey, I don’t struggle to get meaningful relationships! Getting laid tho is a different case sadly
“Incel” doesn’t just mean someone who is involuntarily celibate.
It’s a bit like how “Democrat” doesn’t just mean someone who participates in a democracy and “pro-life” doesn’t just mean someone who likes life on earth.
Incels are a specific subculture, it has a violent misogynistic ideology and has spawned several mass murderers.
Does that make me an incel?
Nope, it’s become a self identification ascribed to. Only defining feature of an imcel now is saying “I’m an incel”
And it happens to be that said communities are jam packed full of some extreme bigotry, hate, loathing, misogynistic behavior, etc etc.
Which means a person who identifies themselves with that crowd, can be assumed to be of the same cut of cloth.
In other words, a person like you would likely say “I haven’t been with a woman but I ain’t no incel though”, to signal you don’t identify with that culture.
The problem is, the word “involuntary” in incel puts the blame on those who won’t fuck them. It’s not their fault they haven’t had sex yet, it’s those who keep denying them. This gives them a reason not to have to change their behaviors or thoughts, which keeps them undesirable. That’s why they’re frowned upon.
Basically it’s the mindset of the Chalmers meme that makes an incel.
Am I doing something that actively repulses women?
No, it’s the women who are wrong
As long as you don’t subscribe to this line of reasoning, you aren’t an incel
Exactly. Incel is not another word for vergin, there are tons of vergins who aren’t incels.
I’d argue that not being a virgin also doesn’t prevent you from becoming an incel. You just weren’t always one.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The term “involuntary” means that they’re not chosing to be single or sexless, but that forces outside of their control is causing it. But something has to cause it, and it’s the attitude that women have that they usually blame. The problem is that their own issues are what cause the celibacy, of which they refuse to change. It’s a lot easier for most people to but the blame outside of their control.
deleted by creator
What I will however say is that the dating market can be very harsh, especially for men, and especially those that doesn’t look the best.
This has come up a few times but I’m going to pick this one to reply to. Looks aren’t zero important, but your actual body is far less important than grooming, dress, posture, and other related things that are far easier to change.
Related, have you seen how men act? Like ask a woman-who-dates-men friend what it’s like on tinder. The bar is on the floor my dudes. With some bare minimum treating the other person like a person, being sincere and present, you’re so far above the average.
Except some of us are treated like absolute garbage because of this definition. I’m just quiet and chill so somehow that gets defined as creepy. I’ve taken to just treating people as a reflection of how they treat me. Like I’m not even looking and I get treated as creepy I’d like to be in a relationship, but it really isn’t a requirement for me to be fulfilled. This really messes with my self esteem and makes me not want to talk to people for the most part.
I can’t speak to your creepiness, but as long as you put the onus on yourself as to why you’re single and don’t blame others, I wouldn’t call you an incel. Do you call yourself an incel?
No I don’t call myself an incel, but the definition has been detrimental to my daily life… Like of I’m out in public not with a girl just doing things as normal I get this stigma and dirty looks.
Can you give an example?
Honestly, it sounds like an anxiety disorder. No one is looking at men walking around without a partner wondering why a partner isn’t with them,. No one expects people to be with their partners all the time.
It’s definitely tough when you get criticised just for chilling out. My advice is to try and not be offended by those comments unless they come from people close or important to you. Ask yourself: why does their opinion matter/what value does it actually have? Is it jyst a throwaway comment from a e.g. stranger or friend of a friend of a friend. You do not need other’s opinions to validate yourself, so long as you’re not causing harm to anyone else, keep doing what you’re doing because it’s good for you and leave the busibodies to their ignorant opinion and to waste only their time and effort on it, not yours.
Ps you share my broad approach of treating others well if they treat me well. Thumbs up for that!
. I’m just quiet and chill so somehow that gets defined as creepy.
This was me in college! And then I realized I was dressing like a weird hippy with a terrible haircut and gross beard. That stuff was a much bigger factor than being quiet.
deleted by creator
No one is entitled to sex. That is not a right anyone has. Thus, the only way to be involuntarily celibate is being force to become a monk under threat or something. The idea that people are entitled to receive the love/sex/intimacy of others is fucked up and betrays the fundamental trust implied by consent. Which is the right of everyone involved to refuse, withdraw, or straight up remove themselves from participating in an intimate situation, at any time, without the need to provide any sort of explanation or justification.
The proposal that these people are entitled to sex gives rapey vibes and naturally generates disgusts in anyone who thinks rationally about the proposition for more than a minute. Because of the implication.
Lots of good posts here so far. Something I haven’t seen mentioned is incel fascination with what is essentially phrenology. “My jaw is only 34% as prominent as the ideal and therefore I will never know the touch of a woman”.
It’s a loser mentality for losers. They are projecting it onto themselves.
I am in a similar situation as you, I am 36 and have never been in a relationship, I don’t blame anyone, I am a bit sad about it when I think of it, but I can’t blame anyone for it, it is just circumstances.
I think that “incels” are defined by their feeling that they deserve a relationship with a woman, that they are being denied what they believe is rightfully theirs and that by just being polite they can convince a woman to fall into their arms.
I don’t concider myself an incel, for me based on circumstances if anything I have choosen to not persue a relationship, there are reasons for this, late maturity, being overweight, balding, concern for if I would find a woman who would be fine with me having zero experience in both day to day things as well as intimite moments.
But these are all problems that I have to work on, and I do my best with the tools I have.
Fwiw, about the zéro expérience thing, I hope you know that plenty of women would enjoy helping their partner explore how to share pleasure and day to day intimacy with them. Being inexperienced and realistic about it also means you won’t have that overconfidence that leads some men to disregard their partner’s personal likes, needs and body quirks, and that can be a very reassuring premise.
Source : this old crone was that woman once.
That is a very good point I had not considered, thank you!
I’ve never encountered an incel that wasn’t misogynistic. Generally they blame women for their lack of sex.
I blame my looks and bank account for lack of sex.
Have you tried lowering your standards?
I don’t want to be condescending or patronising, however: looks are less important than personal hygene, personal care and charisma, three things that can be acquired quite easily as there is a lot of literarure on all of them. Money certainly enables you to get better clothes and widen your horizons, but alone it will not do much for you. The most important thing though is certainly hygene. And remember that when you go out with someone the first time, usually what they are trying to understand is if you are completely deranged or viable human material. Try to fit the second category and you’ll do great. Poor people and ugly people also get laid, so that’s not an excuse.
It is generally used to reffer to men who blame women for themselves not being able to get into relationships, not everyone who isn’t in a relationship
I think it’s important that we define what an incel is first and foremost, because the word has lost a lot of its meaning over the past decade.
Incel is short for ‘involuntary celibate’, or somebody who hasn’t had sexual relations not out of a voluntary vow of abstinence, but rather because mental and/or physical factors have made them into an undesirable partner and have left them feeling shunned by society. This could be things like autism, personality disorders, physical disfigurement or major injury as examples.
Many people in that situation refuse to identify as an incel, because the incel community which several mass shooters like Elliot Rodger came from is deeply misogynistic and talks about women as if they’re subhuman. They also idolize mass shooters as heroes. So maybe incel refers to that deeply misogynistic sect of the manosphere.
But more recently, incel has become something of a catch-all insult towards low value misogynistic men. Andrew Tate for example has been branded the ‘Incel King’ for the views that he preaches, even though 1. unlike an actual incel this guy fucks, and 2. a real incel wouldn’t have the charisma to run a MLM scheme, cam girl business and an alleged sex trafficking operation.
Uh one correction, Tate rapes.
The claims that Andrew Tate is a huge misogynist aren’t even overblown either.
There are legitimately video clips around where Tate is visibly giddy over the thought of women being stoned for adultery. If someone is laughing and cracking jokes over a woman being pelted to death with rocks, they should not be trusted with dating advice.
There’s a crucial distinction between someone that wants to have sex, but cannot, and someone that chooses to identify as that. To really become an “incel” in the negative sense, you lose the desire to have sex because being denied sexual contact by others is part of your identity now.
People that merely don’t find others that are sexually interested in them can do things to help themselves, learn better grooming habits, dress nicer, practice approaching and talking to people, etc. Someone that has adopted the identity of “incel” can only help themselves by changing their perception away from the toxic void they found.
There’s something very unlikable about anyone who blames all their woes and mishaps on someone else.
For incels it’s the women who have ruined society, for MAGAts it’s the left, for tankies and left reactionaries it’s the libs.
The one true facet stringing them all together is their inability to take personal responsibility for their situations (especially when there is any amount of public scrutiny, pride limits their growth potential).
There are people who can’t get laid but who aren’t an incel because they don’t blame others (especially women) for that.
My perception is that sex-starved males are seen as dangerous, and the fear of that easily translates into a stigma.
I recall my recently-divorced friend (with a young daughter) trying to describe this to me: how almost overnight the girly sleepovers and socials went from common & spread across the homes to “silently forbidden” and unspokenly “anywhere but his house”. But he was the same guy as just days before, but (so the theory goes) the only change was that now people “knew” he was not being… pacified?
One thing about being a woman (which I am not for the record, I have a lovely wife who explains things) is that you can’t just trust men. They can overpower you, and even though most won’t, some will and there’s no way to tell who it’s going to be. That necessarily means women have to not trust men that they don’t know intimately for their own safety.
That concept certainly extends to parents of girls. If there is not a female authority in the house, a sleepover with a man and bunch of girls is questionable at best and tragedy waiting to happen at worst, even if that man is one of their fathers.
It doesn’t mean that they have to think that man is “unpacified” to call out that specific situation as inappropriate. It’s just a boundary your friend now has to be aware of, and agree to let his daughter go to sleepovers in other girls’ homes.
That being said, I wouldn’t call this specific situation stigma from being a perceived incel, but more like parents being wary of a single man they might not know that well hosting a sleepover with a bunch of girls.
…
Edit: There have already been a couple of real salty men who take issue with the fact that women are wary of men just because they’re men. I get it. I’ve been there.
But I’m not going to rehash the whole argument I just went through because you might think the line of reasoning that you aren’t a rapist means it’s wrong for women to take precautions.
It’s not personal. It’s not a reflection of you as a person. It’s just something women have to be aware of.
I’m not going to engage this point with anyone else. I posted some resources. I’d urge anyone who comes away from this comment thread with anger or confusion to just get a woman’s perspective first and try to be open minded.
An interesting thread. As a father of a young daughter I do share the same concerns and would be cautious with sending my kid to a sleepover like that. That is, if i don’t know the guy well enough. And i do not care if anyone calls me a bigot for me being protective for the person I am legally required to protect.
That is, of course this would be not the only possible red flag for me, and until my girl is capable of looking after herself (that may happen earlier than legal age, judging by her strong spirit and success in various sports), I’ll continue to be cautious. On the other hand, I’d do my best to not share this line of reasoning with the girl herself. This particular case does not seem like a good learning opportunity for a “stranger danger” lesson.That is, if i don’t know the guy well enough
Thank you. This is the crux of it. I’ve rehashed this argument countless times with countless men over the years who take personal offense that men on the whole are not super trustworthy. If you aren’t a rapist, we aren’t talking about you. But, unless we know each other well, there’s no way we can be sure. It’s as simple as that.
Cudos on being unrelentingly protective of your daughter, while respecting that she may also be able to make those calls herself one day. You sound like a great dad.
I have seen too many absolutists with claims that sound really nice, until they meet the reality. Like the ones who were trying to cancel Rowling, for example. All of that does not mean, of course, that we all should wear bulletproof vests all the time because someone may start shooting any moment (and not only in the U of S, we here across the pond also see someone with crazy eyes stabbing random people from time to time. US is on another level though). Just need to use the brain and take potential risks into account.
Women tend to experience violence from men at a much higher rate than from guns not held by men.
Not sure what your point is, but i believe you are correct in saying that men do not need a gun for that (and likely women rarely do gum robbery or whatever).
What the hell?
That’s an awful take on life. Replace “men” who can overpower women with a race of people who have larger physiques than the average people or perhaps with those who hail from culture who has had a more violent past. We’re obviously just assuming things, so why not? A generic man can overpower a generic woman just as much as a generic Norwegian person can overpower a generic Korean person.
That’s saying that you can’t trust your kids to sleep over at the house of anybody who isn’t like you. I really hope that you guys aren’t pushing this world view on children.
Is it an awful way to go through life? Yes. Does it lower your risk to go through life this way? Also yes. Sorry, but I’m not risking my kid’s innocence to be politically correct.
Not all men, but enough men to be wary of all men.
Concise and to the point. Thank you for understanding this. Unfortunately, the other guy is dead set on not understanding it.
I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.
This makes me sick.
Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.
I hope our paths never cross.
deleted by creator
No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.
I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that “liberal” minded people could think it’s rational to discriminate against half the population
Lmao
You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.
Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.
If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?
That’s the reality women face with men every day.
I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can’t trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you’re making are called sexists.
And what of abusive women? Women are suddenly more trustworthy in this situation?
Why?
You got evidence it’s not just a social stigma that’s giving men a bad reputation and ignoring all the instances where women have done the same?.
You’re not being cautious. You’re being paranoid and propagating a serious social problem that has been around for literally centuries.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
You’re not being diligent or “fair” to men to avoid spreading a social stigma, you are blind to the fact that it’s nearly 100x more likely to be a man committing sexual assault than a woman.
Accusing this person of being paranoid of a very real problem is ironically pretty ignorant and paranoid on your own part as a man (I assume).
And so you keep propagating garbage. Slow clap.
Anyway:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-023-02717-0
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X08322632
I doubt you’ll actually read any of this. But if you are interested in educating yourself you may need a paywall unlocking extension for some of these.
Perhaps you’ll even notice how the subject of men getting raped by women, or children getting abused by women, goes unreported, is understudied, almost never gets funding for study, is never taken seriously, and has more than a little bit of social pressure going against it.
But hey, I guess I’m just blind, huh?
Ok, let’s take your garbage source by source, since you obviously think that overwhelming me with data is a viable strategy:
- None of what I said supports the notion that sexual assault against men doesn’t exist
“Violence against women survey shows that 3% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization”
So… Consistent with my source that estimates about 9% of victims are men (or specifically not explicitly women)?
- Setting aside that this is a study on British men,
“The incidence rates of male sexual victimization range widely, from less than one percent to 73%” the reason given in the source is that many incidences are believed to be under reported.
That still doesn’t really change the fact that reported sexual assault in the US is overwhelmingly done by men, as outlined by your next source:
- This one is actually my favorite of your sources because of all the raw data:
Starting at Page 18
“More than a quarter of US women experienced unwanted sexual contact at some point in their lives”
“Across all states, between 23.4% and 42.0% of women experienced non-contact unwanted sexual experiences at some point in the lives”
Perpetrators of female sexual contact are 97.1% Male with nearly 70% of unwanted sexual contact done by an acquaintence or stranger. You know that point I’ve been making up and down this thread about women needing to be wary of men they don’t know? Here it is. In your source.
Page 32 lines out that 86.5% of unwanted sexual contact to men were also perpetrated by exclusively men, with less than 10% of those cases being female only perpetrators.
So… Also supporting my source that the vast majority of sexual assault is done by men? Even the vast majority of unwanted sexual contact done against men is perpetrated by other men?
-
(The onus is on you to provide a source not locked behind a pay wall if you want me to read it, not me to crack it. However, I will again point out that the claim I made does not preclude male victims of sexual assault from existing at all)
-
This one is a little different because it’s exclusively about sexual violence toward children, and neither here nor there on my original claim, but:
"Although these convictions are far less than those of male offenders…
While figures in the United States suggest that women account for 12 to 17 percent of the sex offender population"
Yeah, again, consistent with the core assertion that men are far more likely to commit sexual assault.
So in conclusion, maybe you didn’t actually read most of these? Because they all (obviously excluding the one I didn’t see behind the pay wall) outright state exactly what I said, which is that the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men.
Who’s pedaling garbage? These are your sources…
Now where’s the part where you acknowledge the fact that the source I linked is thoroughly notated and referenced? And that I didn’t in fact just make those numbers up?
Or am I the only one required to do any reading?
It’s not unreasonable for a parent to not trust a single man with a girl’s sleepover because they don’t know them.
The fact is, you shouldn’t trust anybody who might take advantage of you if you are vulnerable, particularly if they are in a position of authority, especially if they are the lone figure of authority in a dynamic where abuse is known to happen.
You wouldn’t go to a sleepover with your boss if you thought he wanted to get in your pants, would you?
I’m not going to dignify the rest of that with a response. You can bark about racial equivalency all you want but you have obviously never been a woman cornered by a man who wanted something from you. The fact that women have to be wary of men isn’t an opinion. It’s life. Go ask a woman you know.
You didn’t originally state not trusting a single man with hosting a sleepover because you didn’t know them. You said intimately know.
This paranoia about being taken advantage of is insane. How do you function around strangers?
You’re moving the scenario to a sleepover with a boss who wants to sleep with you. Where did that come from? How are you getting to that from a divorced acquaintance who is the parent of one of your kids? That’s a completely different scenario. I thought you didn’t know this single dad?
You didn’t originally state
You’re moving the scenario
So… I guess comparing this situation to something wildly unrelated to illustrate your point is only something you’re allowed to do?
The concept is simple, and widely permeates media. I did your work for you and typed in the phrase “why do women fear men” into a basic Google search. Here’s some sources for you:
https://www.tekedia.com/are-women-truly-afraid-of-men/
It’s not my job to field your hypotheticals while you berate an idea that isn’t even mine. I’m a man. I don’t know this issue first hand, so maybe you could do like I did and seek to learn it.
In the mean time, I don’t particularly care about how you choose to frame it or how ridiculous you think it is. It’s not a concept you can just dispel by beating me in an argument. So either try to understand it or don’t. But I’m not going to argue with you about it.
I replied to your original comment with why I feel this viewpoint is flawed. Dangerous even.
I used an example as a counterpoint.
Your reply used a different example to argue against mine without actually addressing what I’m trying to say by countering your initial comment.
It’s just as shitty to type “why do whites fear blacks” in google.
If you want to give up on this issue that’s on you, but get off your high horse.
Go actually learn about the viewpoint then. The only one on a high horse is the person making egregious false equivalencies to dilute a very real fear that women have to live with.
And besides that, I’d like to see you argue your “that viewpoint is dangerous” stance to a couple of parents who are nervous about sending their daughter to a sleepover where the only authority figure is a grown man.
If you really don’t get why there’s a problem with that, maybe ask a woman in your life.
In the mean time, take your misplaced anger somewhere else. I won’t be responding to it anymore.
The difference is that men do.
I think it’s not that sex starved men are dangerous as much as it’s men are dangerous. It’s not the presence of your buddy, it’s the absence of his wife that has changed the other parents’ safety rating of the house.
That really sucks to hear. Without any context, it just sounds like the kid has to suffer the consequences of her parents split.
Yea the girls sleepovers stopped because there isn’t a woman present. This isn’t an incel thing, this is an even more prolific lack of trust in men to care for young girls (often times just children in general). And it has nothing to do with him not getting laid by a wife at all. That’s a weird correlation to make.
