Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Angst]

Ryika is pretty smart and the people doing this kind of academia are pretty smart, but the idea that they're authoritatively smarter is, let's say, wishful thinking.

We're not talking about one random guy in a lab coat. We're talking about a large field of study with plentiful of dedicated people investigating this particular subject over and over again. I trust the science. You maybe don't? Is this all an academic conspiracy of corruption? Or is it more likely that a vast number of people that have dedicated their lives to this subject may know more about it than me, Ryika or you? Calling that wishful thinking, to be honest, isn't very smart. That they're smarter is just more probable.

 

[spot261]

...you thought that I meant that an Incel "deserves" to have a sexual partner in the same way a black guy from the ghetto "deserves" a decent standard of living?

Read my post again, I've explained it very clearly.

Your comparison is based on a false equivalence, whether you feel an incel deserves a partner or not is not the point. Your argument was based in the same mentality with which an incel would argue they do have such a right. By drawing a parallel between sexual relations and material possessions then drawing a conclusion based on that you identified a pattern of thinking which is actually part of the problem.

With that said though, like I said earlier in this thread, I do think Incels "deserve" to have a partner, just like everybody does who wants one. The need for love and care is SO fundamental to us humans, that people who really want a partner but cannot find one, are extremely susceptible for mental problems resulting from that, this IS an issue of social injustice in my eyes, and such issues should be fixed, or at least mitigated as much as possible.

I agree lack of intimacy is the root of many mental health problems, but that's not a social injustice. A social injustice is a product of society, not a question of one's personal behaviour. Of course there are reasons to be compassionate, but a social injustice would be a thing which requires a shift on behalf of society, an effort by others to adapt to the person. This is precisely the opposite, this is a situation where the person needs to adapt in turn.

The problem in this case of course, and thank you for pointing that out so bravely, is that those "partners" are generally humans too, who have a free will of their own, which is why as a result we cannot just "give them the partner they deserve". There are other ways to aid these people though, like offering access to self-help that is designed to boost a person's self-esteem and self-worth. And in cases of gross disfigurement or extremely unattractiveness, plastic surgery might be an alternative as well.

Which is an argument for nationalised healthcare, we do in fact offer exactly such options in the UK, but physical attractiveness only goes so far, it might a person's confidence, but it won't allow them to maintain a healthy relationship.

What are you, a hippie? We know scientifically that people prejudge and categorize other people the moment they see them. We also know that people's first judgement of people they find physically attractive is better than the judgement they cast on people they find unattractive. It is a guarantee that you, as a human, have declared other people to be unfit for a relationship or for intercourse purely on that first impression, without ever giving them a chance to show redeeming qualities.

Ironically (and you might not believe me here, but as there are people posting here who know me personally it's a moot point) I'm a forensic mental health professional, although my original career was in research psychology.

You're right of course that there is literature supporting your point, but you're overstating the case. The halo effect has only a limited mileage after which the person has to be able to actually deliver on the implied promise. Prolonged positive exposure to an individual has been shown not only to increase the chances of a physical attraction developing, but also to alter perceptions of physical appearance. The key thing is that those interactions are in fact genuinely positive.

And no amount of intelligent discussion that you can have with a person will change how you see them as a potential partner if they have a fist that you want to smash your hand into, and a voice that makes you physically cringe.

I've never looked at a woman and wanted to smash my hand into the face, this was actually a rather disturbing comment if you don't mind my saying so.

 

[Ryika]

Read my post again, I've explained it very clearly.

Your comparison is based on a false equivalence, whether you feel an incel deserves a partner or not is not the point, your point was based in the same mentality with which an incel would argue they do, by drawing a parallel between sexual relations and material possessions then drawing a conclusion based on that.

Well again, the problem is not your explanation, the problem is that you're claiming I made a false equivalence that I never made. If I had made the equivalence that you think I made, then yeah, that would be stupid, but I did not.

- You are a person who appears to be attractive enough to not experience the problems of an extremely unattractive person.
- The guy from my analogy is rich enough to not experience the problems of an extremely poor person.

The equivalence is: "Person who has privilege does not get the problems of a person who lacks that privilege"

The two parts that you're comparing - the parallel between sexual relations and material possessions - were not at all the focus of the analogy, and I already explained that in my last post.

I agree lack of intimacy is the root of many mental health problems, but that's not a social injustice. A social injustice is a product of society, not a question of one's personal behaviour. Of course there are reasons to be compassionate, but a social injustice would be a thing which requires a shift on behalf of society, an effort by others to adapt to the person. This is precisely the opposite, this is a situation where the person needs to adapt in turn.

How could discrimination based on attractiveness not be a social injustice? Discrimination based on sex is, and it contains all the same attributes of people being judged based on some characteristics of their body that they can't change, character traits that are assigned to them as a result etc.

...except that attractiveness works on a scale, while sex is binary. #woke

Which is an argument for nationalised healthcare, we do in fact offer exactly such options in the UK, but physical attractiveness only goes so far, it might a person's confidence, but it won't allow them to maintain a healthy relationship.

Yeah, and having two legs doesn't allow you to run, but if you want to run and don't have legs, then that's probably the first thing that needs to be fixed, eh?

I've never looked at a woman and wanted to smash my hand into the face, this was actually a rather disturbing comment if you don't mind my saying so.

Don't worry, I want to smash my hand into people's faces all the time, so that's pretty normal for me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We're not talking about one random guy in a lab coat. We're talking about a large field of study with plentiful of dedicated people investigating this particular subject over and over again. I trust the science. You maybe don't? Is this all an academic conspiracy of corruption? Or is it more likely that a vast number of people that have dedicated their lives to this subject may know more about it than me, Ryika or you? Calling that wishful thinking, to be honest, isn't very smart. That they're smarter is just more probable.

The trap there, which you have basically dived into headfirst, is that "smart" and "knowledgeable" are not the least bit interchangeable.

 

[spot261]

Well again, the problem is not your explanation, the problem is that you're claiming I made a false equivalence that I never made. If I had made the equivalence that you think I made, then yeah, that would be stupid, but I did not.

- You are a person who appears to be attractive enough to not experience the problems of an extremely unattractive person.
- The guy from my analogy is rich enough to not experience the problems of an extremely poor person.

The equivalence is: "Person who has privilege does not get the problems of a person who lacks that privilege"

The two parts that you're comparing - the parallel between sexual relations and material possessions - were not at all the focus of the analogy, and I already explained that in my last post.

You're still not getting the distinction here, the two cases diverge on multiple levels and you're only discussing (or apparently aware of) one.

In order for your analogy to work, in order for me to be equivalent to the rich white guy patronising the poor black one there has to be an equivalence between the nature of the two disparities. The ethical issue facing the rich white man is that he has access to material resources which are rightfully his, but the poor black man is being denied those resources despite having an equally legitimate claim on them.

There are several places at which that diverges from the case we are discussing, but the crucial one which makes it null and void is in the word "deserve". One can deserve an equal chance to share in material opportunity, by being removed from that access the poor black man is being discriminated against by being treated inequitably. He should have that access, but society denies him it. The incel has no such ethical recourse, he is not due access to sexual partners and is not being deprived of a right.

This isn't a case of simply having and lacking a privilege, it's a question of understanding that by having access to sexual partners I am not in some sense enjoying a right which is being deprived someone else. By commenting on that disparity I am not failing to appreciate their plight, I am commenting on the driving forces behind that disparity and how they are by and large internal.

A poor black man disadvantaged by a racist society may well be unable to actively change his situation, he cannot help being black, an incel may well be a physically attractive man who actually possesses the attributes you presume he is lacking, but is failing to make use of them. There is no equivalence between being black and being ugly, one is an objective fact, the other a subjective assessment which cannot be objectively confirmed except by consensus.

If you doubt this take a stroll around some of the incel forums and look at the faces on display. You might be surprised to discover the stereotype you are supposing of hideously deformed creatures who would repulse a woman on sight doesn't really hold up. Many of them are much better looking than I am, as previously mentioned I'm not a stunning man by any stretch of the imagination.

By inferring that an incel is by necessity lacking in some attribute which would make them dateable and therefore disadvantaged is to miss the point of what an incel is.

Being an incel is about how that person views their situation, not some intractable and deterministic factor which is beyond even their control even in potentia. It's an attitude and a mode of self identification, not a state of being outside of one's control.

How could discrimination based on attractiveness not be a social injustice? Discrimination based on sex is, and it contains all the same attributes of people being judged based on some characteristics of their body that they can't change, character traits that are assigned to them as a result etc.

...except that attractiveness works on a scale, while sex is binary. #woke

A social injustice is an injustice brought about by society, but society does not create the problems suffered by an incel. By and large they do.

Discrimination based on sex can be an injustice in some circumstances and not others. If someone is unfairly treated in the workplace because of their sex, that's discrimination, if they are hassled or abused because of their sex, that's discrimination. They are owed the fair and equitable treatment which allows them to have the same opportunities and protections within society. Society owes them that equitable treatment.

Being found attractive or not is a completely different matter, no one is owed the experience of being found attractive. If I walk into a gay club and start hitting on lesbians I'm not being discriminated against when they reject me for being male. It's my sex which is taking me out of "the running", but I had no inherent right to be in that running in the first place. People get turned down by individuals exercising their own right to choose, not by a bias in society (or the actions of an empowered individual) which deprives them of that which should be theirs by virtue of citizenship.

Getting turned down for a job for being ugly would be discrimination, getting turned down by a potential partner is not.

Attractiveness does not work on a scale by the way, far from it. I'm not sure why you'd believe that to be the case. The research on mating preferences reveals patterns that are complex, nuanced and highly contextual. There is no one guaranteed formula for being attractive, no scale, no ratings out of ten or percentages. Thousands of factors play into the interpersonal perceptions which qualify one as being attractive to a given other and a significant portion of those factors have very little to do with one's facial features.

As already pointed out, a great deal of research actually suggests the opposite to be true, that perceptions of physical beauty can in fact be secondary to sexual attraction and the drivers can often be far more closely matched to interpersonal factors.

Again, browse the pictures offered on incel sites and you'll see a lot of young men who have all the physical attributes in place, but find women repelled by the way they treat them. I'm not being glib when I talk about about self fulfilling prophecies, a lot of the attitudes expressed by incels are themseleves exactly the factors which are likely to lead to rejection. When you can realise that and look at what it is about those intersexual interactions which is causing problems you start moving away form the fixation on physical appearance. It's a scapegoat for the real issues which the incel community exacerbates by it's very existence.

Yeah, and having two legs doesn't allow you to run, but if you want to run and don't have legs, then that's probably the first thing that needs to be fixed, eh?

Except there is no such thing in this case as having no legs. Literally anyone can be attractive to the opposite sex. Anyone.

 

[Ryika]

In order for your analogy to work, in order for me to be equivalent to the rich white guy patronising the poor black one there has to be an equivalence between the nature of the two disparities.

Not at all. The point of my analogy was to show that you're arguing from a point of gross ignorance of the problems the person that you're talking about faces, and it did exactly that, because this reasoning here...

There are several places at which that diverges from the case we are discussing, but the crucial one which makes it null and void is in the word "deserve". One can deserve an equal chance to share in material opportunity, by being removed from that access the poor black man is being discriminated against by being treated inequitably. He should have that access, but society denies him it. The incel has no such ethical recourse, he is not due access to sexual partners and is not being deprived of a right.

...is entirely nonsensical.

What a person deserves and what they don't deserve, what they should and should not have, is solely decided by society. There's nothing inherent to humans that makes us "deserve an equal chance to share in material opportunity", the very idea that this should be the case is extremely new and has grown from the prosperity of our societies.

Access to material opportunity, and access to sexual opportunities are exactly same in that regard, if society decides in the future that every person should have access to a healthy sex life, then they do deserve that.

The fact that society right now does not see it that way, does not change the fact that your previous and ongoing rambles about how psychically unattractive people are not disadvantaged because everybody can be attractive to the opposite sex durrrrr, are entirely based on your privileged position.

But hey, let's tell that super-unattractive guy who was bullied because of his looks, got told how ugly he is during most of his childhood, that he just has to be extra-charming and witty, and then he will overcome his handicap and get all the girls - because we know of course, that people who get bullied and made fun of usually have a lot of self-esteem and a high feeling of self-worth. So that's totally helpful advise for him, and not just an empty statement that's entirely based on your inability to even put yourself in the shoes of such a person.

I'll ignore the rest of your post, because you're still rambling on about whether Incels are are justified in their behavior when I already said twice that I'm not claiming Incels in general are justified to feel the way they do. You started this discussion by responding to the post where I said that involuntary celibacy probably does exist, but in the two pages we've been arguing now, you have made no point that refutes that notion in any way. All you do is ramble on about Incels as a group as if that had any relevance to the statement I made.

Overall, I remain of the opinion that there probably exist people for whom involuntary celibacy is an actual thing.

 

[Hygro]

I agree lack of intimacy is the root of many mental health problems, but that's not a social injustice. A social injustice is a product of society, not a question of one's personal behaviour. Of course there are reasons to be compassionate, but a social injustice would be a thing which requires a shift on behalf of society, an effort by others to adapt to the person. This is precisely the opposite, this is a situation where the person needs to adapt in turn.

Your argument reads like a 19th century economist saying there's no involuntary unemployment, just people not trying hard enough.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Overall, I remain of the opinion that there probably exist people for whom involuntary celibacy is an actual thing.

There are definitely people for whom involuntary celibacy is a thing, because there are people who are in cells.

 

[Hygro]

deep

i agree tho

 

[spot261]

Not at all. The point of my analogy was to show that you're arguing from a point of gross ignorance of the problems the person that you're talking about faces, and it did exactly that, because this reasoning here...

Ok, let's see

What a person deserves and what they don't deserve, what they should and should not have, is solely decided by society. There's nothing inherent to humans that makes us "deserve an equal chance to share in material opportunity", the very idea that this should be the case is extremely new and has grown from the prosperity of our societies.

Well, society as a consequence of ethics and it's not new at all, it's been around at the very least since the times of the ancient Greeks. Variants of the idea have shaped dozens of societies down the ages, unlike:

Access to material opportunity, and access to sexual opportunities are exactly same in that regard, if society decides in the future that every person should have access to a healthy sex life, then they do deserve that.

Which has never happened, because that little word "ethics" isn't open ended. We debate and change ethical viewpoints over time, but there are recurring themes which by and large remain pretty consistent. Power plays such as prima nocta aside there's been very little instance, if any, of society believing men have an inherent right to sex, even in the most misogynistic of societies. Women have been hassled, oppressed, virtually owned, but it's hard to find an example of a society where each and every man was somehow granted the inalienable right to have sex.

It's not a right, never has been except for a privileged few and I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar never will be, because by and large people recognise such a position as being wrong.

But hey, let's tell that super-unattractive guy who was bullied because of his looks, got told how ugly he is during most of his childhood, that he just has to be extra-charming and witty, and then he will overcome his handicap and get all the girls -

You mean me?

I've repeatedly told you I'm not exactly a looker, that my "success" has been based on behaviours and interactions other than the attributes you so despise as the preserve of the few.

I am that bullied guy who learnt to see beyond the obvious.

Many ugly men are extremely attractive to women by virtue of their genuine behaviours, many handsome men remain repulsive and become incels. Again I invite you to browse incel forums and find out just how many of these men are actually really rather good looking, yet struggle anyway.

 

[spot261]

Your argument reads like a 19th century economist saying there's no involuntary unemployment, just people not trying hard enough.

Only if you read it wrong.

Unemployment comes about when there's a dearth of jobs, we aren't suffering a dearth of women. There's no comparison between the two unless you are being absurd.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've repeatedly told you I'm not exactly a looker, that my "success" has been based on behaviours and interactions other than the attributes you so despise as the preserve of the few.

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point. Okay, you are a successful "not a looker." That doesn't mean that there aren't people operating under genuine handicaps, like actual deformities, that can't simply 'overcome' the way you have.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Can you quote even a single "radfem" who has argued that women should be able to rape men with impunity?

And from 1968 there is this.

 

[spot261]

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point. Okay, you are a successful "not a looker." That doesn't mean that there aren't people operating under genuine handicaps, like actual deformities, that can't simply 'overcome' the way you have.

And they aren't the incel community, nor are they necessarily unable to find love.

Incels aren't people who are physically repulsive, they are people who believe they are owed sexual privilege and blame women for the fact that attitude is exactly what is preventing them achieving that goal.

 

[Ryika]

Which has never happened, because that little word "ethics" isn't open ended. We debate and change ethical viewpoints over time, but there are recurring themes which by and large remain pretty consistent. Power plays such as prima nocta aside there's been very little instance, if any, of society believing men have an inherent right to sex, even in the most misogynistic of societies. Women have been hassled, oppressed, virtually owned, but it's hard to find an example of a society where each and every man was somehow granted the inalienable right to have sex.

It's not a right, never has been except for a privileged few and I'm willing to bet my bottom dollar never will be, because by and large people recognise such a position as being wrong.

Yeah, but that's based on the fact that you still think that I'm arguing that men should have access to a harem or something idiotic like that. If you actually stopped and read my posts, you'd realize that I'm making much more nuanced points that do not involve the sexual enslavement of even a single person.

You mean me?

I've repeatedly told you I'm not exactly a looker, that my "success" has been based on behaviours and interactions other than the attributes you so despise as the preserve of the few.

I am that bullied guy who learnt to see beyond the obvious.

Pix or didn't happen.

But serious answer: Even then, you're still a person who has had the ability to overcome these odds, an ability that others obviously do not have. There are so many factors in this, your support structures (family, etc.) may just be a lot better than the structure of another person who is not able to overcome their handicap, or you might just be genetically predisposed to handle these things better. In either case, "Someone did it, so everybody can do it, there's no problem here!" is not a strong argument.

Many ugly men are extremely attractive to women by virtue of their genuine behaviours, many handsome men remain repulsive and become incels. Again I invite you to browse incel forums and find out just how many of these men are actually really rather good looking, yet struggle anyway.

I do not care about Incels. How hard is it to understand this?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Incels aren't people who are physically repulsive, they are people who believe they are owed sexual privilege and blame women for the fact that attitude is exactly what is preventing them achieving that goal.

"Incels aren't people who are physically repulsive" would more accurately be stated "Incels aren't <just, or commonly, or necessarily> people who are physically repulsive." Part of my lack of sympathy for the "incel community" is that they seem to be usurping the problem that some real people do actually have. I think that was sort of the point Ryika has been trying to make, and was definitely the point of my own little wordplay about people in cells.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And from 1968 there is this.

A film based on a book by a man, who also wrote the screenplay. Directed by a man too.

 

[spot261]

Yeah, but that's based on the fact that you still think that I'm arguing that men should have access to a harem or something idiotic like that. If you actually stopped and read my posts, you'd realize that I'm making much more nuanced points that do not involve the sexual enslavement of even a single person.

No, I read them just fine. The point still stands, we've never seen a society take the position you suggest, not once, nor will we because peacetime societies are inherently run by human beings who largely recognise the idea of sex as a right as being abhorrent.

Pix or didn't happen.

Nah, I'm happy with the few people in here I already know having my full real world identity, I'm not sharing with total strangers and nor should I be expected to. After all you could simply choose to decide I'm gorgeous and who could actually make a rational argument? These things are subjective, which is the point.

However I will point to these guys,

who are in fact poster boys for the incel movement (no pun intended). Do they look irredeemably ugly to you? I'm hoping you have it in you to be honest here because as a straight male I can see that neither is physically repulsive, far from it in fact. They are both good looking men, as are many incels.

They suffer because of their attitudes, not their looks.

But serious answer: Even then, you're still a person who has had the ability to overcome these odds, an ability that others obviously do not have. There are so many factors in this, your support structures (family, etc.) may just be a lot better than the structure of another person who is not able to overcome their handicap, or you might just be genetically predisposed to handle these things better. In either case, "Someone did it, so everybody can do it, there's no problem here!" is not a strong argument.

I wish you had some way of knowing how wrong you are about me, about my life and where I came from. I don't know you anywhere near well enough to share but if you think I've had it easy you're way off the mark.

I'm not sure what you think my argument is, but as a professional person I'm entirely on board with the idea confidence is something which can be nurtured and developed with help and that selfsame psychological help is a far more effective way forward than plastic surgery. One addresses the real problem, the other will go nowhere as looks aren't the issue here

I do not care about Incels. How hard is it to understand this?

You seem to care a great deal to be honest.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wish you had some way of knowing how wrong you are about me, about my life and where I came from. I don't know you anywhere near well enough to share but if you think I've had it easy you're way off the mark.

I wish you would catch on that "knowing the real you" is totally superfluous to the point Ryika keeps scoring here.

 

[spot261]

I wish you would catch on that "knowing the real you" is totally superfluous to the point Ryika keeps scoring here.

No, it really isn't. I get the point that something about me must have worked in my favour, but that's circular reasoning because it could equally apply to anyone. The moment someone gets sufficient help or insight to see beyond the incel mentality the same reasoning could be applied there. They were given the support, they had the help, whatever leads to that moment where they move beyond self imposed restrictions also leads to a situation where your logic applies.

No matter how you look at it, incels are people who suffer in life because of the very attitudes which define them as beings incels in the first place. An incel isn't just someone who doesn't have sex, he's someone who blames women for that situation and doesn't look any further because that's easier than making any changes or finding any help for the real issues.