Why have incels gotten so much attention?

[Manfred Belheim]

I do find that interesting though, because I am hard pressed to believe it isn't a parody. Join date equals post date on the one and only post? That's a troll. Openly asking "should I commit a violent crime?" That's a draw law enforcement troll.

It looks pretty similar to what @MaryKB described as having been shown to her, and I'm wondering if it was posted with the specific intention that it could be circulated under "OMG just look at what these horrible incels are up to."

Interesting timing too. It was only posted on Sunday, and has only
gathered a grand total of 2 replies, so I doubt this has become viral or anything.

Meanwhile another new poster has joined this forum, one with a very outspoken anti incel stance and who appears to be posting exclusively in the thread about incels, who has been showing this around almost from the time it was posted. Presumably the person who initially showed it to Mary too.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, I'm sure we still today totally expect the father of the family to be able to sentence anyone in the house to death, like in Roman times.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.

Of course, someone can have warped or unreasonable expectations. But the meaning of the world is that the outcome someone is thinking about is considered "most likely to happen", so it implies that it should logically be the norm. If someone think that something is likely to happen when it's grossly contrary to social norms, then it means his expectations are whacky, and as such he has no right to have them - he is wrong to have them, because they don't fit reality.

"be wrong" <> "have a right"? That's not even a contradiction. A person can be wrong to have an expectation, and still have the right to have that expectation. But then having an expectation that doesn't fit reality, isn't even "wrong". Thinking that a partner will meet your expectation just because you have that expectation is "wrong".

What you're saying is basically that we should not allow a person to decide for themselves what they find important, what they expect from a potential partner, and that they have to instead evaluate their partner based on what the average person is "likely to be". That's not at all how the world works.

 

[bernie14]

......Expectations can be reasonable or unreasonable. They're reasonable when they're consistent with actual future experience.

"Ethics and morality" in such broad terms don't constrain anticipation much. They're both social constructs. We can broadly say that most people don't want to live in a society where it's okay to kill each other for example, and the expectation that other people don't murder you is therefore reasonable (it's unfortunately more common than we'd like, but still relatively uncommon).

An easy criticism of incels is that their expectations are not reasonable, or perhaps their entire model of reality is too far from what actually happens, with a particular blind spot when it comes to their own behavior/choices.

Exactly, they are social constructs. They are the rules and lessons that we grow up with and shape,i would say, to a significant degree, whether we qualify our experiences as positive or negative ( i am making an assumption that expectations can be shaped by positive and negative experiences).....and even obvious examples such "dont go round killing people" arent absolute. I dont think we will be able to solve the morality vs laws question on cfc but i do question the moral outrage reaction as an effective means to change society for the better.

 

[Akka]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.

We don't have the same expectations than in Roman Times, ergo expectations depends on what is considered reasonable by society at large.

What you're saying is basically that we should not allow a person to decide for themselves what they find important

Expecting a behaviour from someone else is not "deciding for oneself".

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of course, someone can have warped or unreasonable expectations. But the meaning of the world is that the outcome someone is thinking about is considered "most likely to happen", so it implies that it should logically be the norm. If someone think that something is likely to happen when it's grossly contrary to social norms, then it means his expectations are whacky, and as such he has no right to have them - he is wrong to have them, because they don't fit reality.

Virgins exist and as pointed out it's even conceivable that someone with such a preference might not be operating on a double standard. I don't see why it's controversial to say that this preference is not particularly different from any other arbitrary preference. If anything, the assertion that someone has "no right" to have that expectation implies that it should be constrained...such is more authoritative and controlling than the expectation itself could ever be.

I dont think we will be able to solve the morality vs laws question on cfc but i do question the moral outrage reaction as an effective means to change society for the better.

There is at least some tendency for law and morality to align, but also pressure against it.

Moral outrage is certainly not an effective means to change society for the better. It's too distant from what occurs in reality. There should be a reason people prefer some actions and outlaw others, and that reason should be driven by the consequences of those respective actions.

Expecting a behaviour from someone else is not "deciding for oneself".

Nor are expectations at an individual level controlling them. This "Roman times" stuff is a red herring.

If you want to make a case that some reasons to reject a partner are not okay (absent anything other than the mere act of rejection) there's a distinctive burden as to why it is within someone's rights to have some reasons but not other reasons, and why this particular reason is inherently bad to the point where someone has "no right" to use it.

 

[MaryKB]

"I expect my child to always follow my orders and believe what I tell them without questioning it."
"I expect my child to always have an open mind, always consider all sides in a debate equally, and follow their thirst for knowledge wherever it leads them."

Your analogy sort of really reinforces my point though, right? Because as a parent you're in a position of authority over your children, and so you have expectations of your child's behavior ... sort of like how a teacher expects certain things from her students in her classroom, because of authority. But surely men don't have such an authority over women to have expectations of things?

I feel we've sort of gotten a little off here splitting hairs .. I thought we're talking about certain attitudes where a man's expecting women to remain chaste for him, (even before knowing him!) and I really see that as a control thing. So he feels she's no good if she's had a previous partner ... but how would he feel about himself if he's been with someone before? And if he's expecting a woman he's never met to have remained chaste for him, then he's extending his expectation to all women, because he never knows who he might want to date, and so all of us need to submit to his authority and only act with his approval .. that's how such "expectations" feel to me.

I mean, I can understand something different, like if you're "expecting" your partner in your committed relationship not to be faithful, and that goes for both men and women, but I feel that's a totally different discussion. You do have legal expectations in many things, but expecting women to remain chaste for you is really going into sexism territory. As I recall this whole thing started about a man having expectations for women he's not even in a relationship with, right?

 

[Akka]

Virgins exist and as pointed out it's even conceivable that someone with such a preference might not be operating on a double standard. I don't see why it's controversial to say that this preference is not particularly different from any other arbitrary preference.

"expectations" aren't "preferences".

Nor are expectations at an individual level controlling them. This "Roman times" stuff is a red herring.

The Roman times stuff was EXPLICITELY used to prove that expectation comes from what society consider reasonable. Don't try to twist it into something else.

As for having expectations about others, yes it actually DOES mean you consider they should act in a certain way. That's the VERY EFFING DEFINITION of "expectation".
"I expect you to do this" doesn't mean "I prefer people who do this", it means "I consider you should do this".

Of course you can totally consider that one person "should" do something if you both agreed about something (polyamorous relationships are outside societal norm, but one person can expect her partner to uphold such relationship once they have been agreed). It's still about the societal norm that people should stick to their word, so the "right" to have "expectations" is still not about what one wants, but what is a logical consequence.

 

[Ryika]

We don't have the same expectations than in Roman Times, ergo expectations depends on what is considered reasonable by society at large.

No, expectations do not depend on society at large, nothing you say leads to that conclusion. Whether an expectation is reasonable or unreasonable depends on what is considered reasonable by society at large*. It would be entirely unreasonable to have such an expectation, but the step towards "therefor, a person has no right to have that expectation" is a logical jump that you've not supported in any way so far. A person has the right to decide freely over what is going on in their head, you have to create a case against that.

(*And even then, that only goes so far. A reasonable expectation within a subculture for example, can be very different from a reasonable expectation in society. If I go to a swinger party, then I can reasonably expect that a person who I get in contact with is probably okay with having sex with me after we've talked for a minute, which would be unreasonable if I were having that expectation towards random people on the street.)

If I really like the look of black hair, then my expectation towards a potential partner is that he has black hair.
If my partner doesn't have black hair but I really, really like the look of black hair, then I might expect them to dye their hair black for me.

Is that a reasonable expectation? Well, most people in our society would probably not agree with it, so no, it's not very reasonable.

But I can still have that expectation of them, and if I'm lucky, they'll agree. If I'm a bit less lucky they'll offer a deal where he too expects me to do something unreasonable in return - and then I'd have to evaluate how my expectations compare to his expectations, and decide whether I want to agree or not. Or he decides to not act to meet my expectations towards him, and then I have to evaluate how much I insist on that expectation being fulfilled by my boyfriend (which means leaving him and looking for a new one if I really, really want to insist on it).

___


Different example:

A guy finds out that his girlfriend is not a virgin. He expects the woman he wants to marry to not have slept with other men, so he leaves her and embarks on a journey to find a new girlfriend that meets his expectations.

What do you think should be done here?

Absolutely nothing? Then you agree that having unreasonable expectations is okay, and that expectations a person has towards another person do not need to meet societal expectations.

Expecting a behaviour from someone else is not "deciding for oneself".

I decide for myself what I value in another person, and from those decisions, I form expectations.

Your analogy sort of really reinforces my point though, right? Because as a parent you're in a position of authority over your children, and so you have expectations of your child's behavior ... sort of like how a teacher expects certain things from her students in her classroom, because of authority. But surely men don't have such an authority over women to have expectations of things?

No, you do not need authority to have expectations. I can expect my work colleagues to do all the work for me, for example. An unreasonable expectation to the point that I'll likely get fired for it because my work won't get done by anyone, but I can still ("I have the right") to have that expectation.

I feel we've sort of gotten a little off here splitting hairs .. I thought we're talking about certain attitudes where a man's expecting women to remain chaste for him, (even before knowing him!) and I really see that as a control thing. So he feels she's no good if she's had a previous partner ... but how would he feel about himself if he's been with someone before? And if he's expecting a woman he's never met to have remained chaste for him, then he's extending his expectation to all women, because he never knows who he might want to date, and so all of us need to submit to his authority and only act with his approval .. that's how such "expectations" feel to me.

Yeah, it's a stupid expectation, most people would agree with that. And obviously nobody has an obligation to act to meet his expectations. But he can still have that expectation ("he has the right to have that expectation").

I mean, I can understand something different, like if you're "expecting" your partner in your committed relationship not to be faithful, and that goes for both men and women, but I feel that's a totally different discussion. You do have legal expectations in many things, but expecting women to remain chaste for you is really going into sexism territory. As I recall this whole thing started about a man having expectations for women he's not even in a relationship with, right?

I'll repeat the example I made for Akka:

A guy finds out that his girlfriend is not a virgin. He expects the woman he wants to marry to not have slept with other men, so he leaves her and embarks on a journey to find a new girlfriend that meets his expectations.

What do you think should be done here?

 

[Farm Boy]

Why on earth would the criteria expected in a self selected desirable partner be expectation extended to all of a gender? Undesirable matches are most theoretical pairings. Extending the expectation that far changes the entire nature of the expectation. Though it would remain merely that, an expectation. Not an enforceable mandate. Somebody expecting the whole world to be a good match for schtupping has bigger issues with sexuality than somebody expecting to be able to find a virginity to match thier own.

That said, there is a reasonable argument to make that selective and faithful partners make desirable matches if one is looking for a long duration relationship. While those more prone to promiscuity are poorer matches in that regard. Both genders. Teasing out liars is part of the dance.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I feel we've sort of gotten a little off here splitting hairs .. I thought we're talking about certain attitudes where a man's expecting women to remain chaste for him, (even before knowing him!) and I really see that as a control thing.

It's not a control thing more so than any other expected criteria in a partner. For any particular person, there will be things they expect in their significant other. If these expectations are widespread, it does constrain options for people who don't meet them. This isn't a "control thing" unless you're arguing that men and women are routinely controlling each other through widespread expectations.

Even under such a lens, the expectation of chastity is sufficiently niche that this *particular* one isn't very controlling...and such control STILL only manifests under the assumption of choice to pursue a partner.

You subject yourself to much greater control constantly when you go to work, pay taxes, or obey traffic laws.

"expectations" aren't "preferences".

Expectations are formed based at least partially if not heavily on preferences. Do you actually think the guy in this case would consider rejecting someone on the basis of chastity if he didn't prefer someone chaste? No. Without that preference, he wouldn't have any reason to expect that as opposed to expecting an astronaut.

The Roman times stuff was EXPLICITELY used to prove that expectation comes from what society consider reasonable. Don't try to twist it into something else.

I'm not the one twisting. The argumentative position was that an expectation is some form of control, and from another post that someone has "no right" to have them. *Especially* for abnormal expectations like this particular example, there's not much basis for control, and the "no right" aspect is kind of scary.

Contrast that with women who prefer men with money or men who prefer women that are thin. These are relatively mainstream preferences. When it comes to practical constraints on relationship partners, these are *much* more controlling to peoples' every day lives than the relatively niche preference that someone remains chaste. But even that is only if one cares about having a partner. That's not control, it's choice that people are responsible for making. If someone doesn't want a partner with mainstream preferences, what compels them to act on those expectations?

Nothing.

"I expect you to do this" doesn't mean "I prefer people who do this", it means "I consider you should do this".

Yet what I said was in isolation - in other words there are no consequences if the person does not do this aside from that they won't be the person's partner. You've yet to demonstrate why this is unreasonable, or why rejecting on this basis is necessarily worse than another arbitrary basis.

You do have legal expectations in many things, but expecting women to remain chaste for you is really going into sexism territory. As I recall this whole thing started about a man having expectations for women he's not even in a relationship with, right?

It isn't sexism, and it still wouldn't be if a woman rejected a man on those grounds. In both cases, someone has a niche/strange preference and their pursuit of it does not force any individual to do anything.

 

[spot261]

I think it would be very easy to get lost in semantics here, whether it's a desire, an expectation, a demand, this person's wishes weren't merely that he have a chaste partner, but that he should be in a position to punish a girl simply for not meeting that criteria.

That alone is bad enough (and, as suggested, may even be false), but the idea that such a question could be raised on a public platform and not met with horror and revulsion is the deal breaker for me. That's where the take home message is in this little tale of misery. This person isn't an exception, he's entirely in fitting within that particular subculture and that has little or nothing to do with the literal semantics of the words "involuntary celibacy".

He wasn't (and possibly still isn't) literally celibate by virtue of some means beyond his control, the word "incel" applies by virtue of association with a culture with a certain ethos, not the practical realities of his life. He could have sex, in fact part of his "problem" - as he sees it at least - is he was clearly in a position where sex was on the table but he wanted it with an unreasonable measure of control over the other party. That mentality is endemic to the movement and shouldn't be overlooked as an identifier.

These people aren't about celibacy, they are about self hatred projected onto women, a self reinforcing prophecy of failure, where their "support groups" act as an information bubble preventing any chance of alternatives in life, they isolate themselves from any influence which might challenge the illusions they have built up because it's easier and more comfortable to wallow in hate and venom. That's why I say intervention has to come early, it has to be at a school age, it has to be targeted and it can't wait until these views have settled in, because short of forcibly removing someone from those influences you'll never reach them from a position they see as being a society which prejudices against them.

Attraction isn't linear, it's nuanced, complex and situational, but when one takes that stance and insists on a deterministic position where failure is both inevitable and the result of external forces, there's little hope.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think it would be very easy to get lost in semantics here, whether it's a desire, an expectation, a demand, this person's wishes weren't merely that he have a chaste partner, but that he should be in a position to punish a girl simply for not meeting that criteria.

Nobody here is refuting the mere notion of "punishing" in this context is awful though. Worst the guy in this scenario should do is leave the relationship (even that's silly, but it's his life), anything more is completely unreasonable. That said, if that WERE all he does, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

he was clearly in a position where sex was on the table but he wanted it with an unreasonable measure of control over the other party.

There's still no basis in this thread for the "control" line of reasoning. It's even more absurd when it comes to this particular expectation because people can't change the past. There is literally nothing a human being can do to control the fact that a potential partner wasn't chaste.

Attraction isn't linear, it's nuanced, complex and situational, but when one takes that stance and insists on a deterministic position where failure is both inevitable and the result of external forces, there's little hope.

That's actually true for life in general.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd drop it. It's bait, and the incels themselves don't seem to be picking it up and running with it from the descriptions here. Peddling bait is a trap, do not engage troll box.

 

[red_elk]

And if he's expecting a woman he's never met to have remained chaste for him, then he's extending his expectation to all women, because he never knows who he might want to date, and so all of us need to submit to his authority and only act with his approval .. that's how such "expectations" feel to me.

If a guy wants to marry a girl who never had sex before, he may only be looking for a modest like-minded girl (most likely, who's sharing his religious beliefs). I think I even met a few such people in my life.
No, it doesn't mean he expects all women to keep chastity for him. What a strange idea.

 

[Akka]

If I really like the look of black hair, then my expectation towards a potential partner is that he has black hair.

=>

"expectations" aren't "preferences".

Expectations are formed based at least partially if not heavily on preferences.

No.
=>

As for having expectations about others, yes it actually DOES mean you consider they should act in a certain way. That's the VERY EFFING DEFINITION of "expectation".
"I expect you to do this" doesn't mean "I prefer people who do this", it means "I consider you should do this".

Not going to spend tons of time repeating myself.

 

[red_elk]

We're getting too deep in language semantics, but
"I prefer my partner to be smart" and
"I expect my partner to be smart"
are quite similar statements - the latter one is only stronger, meaning that I will consider leaving him/her if he/she doesn't meet my expectations.
Neither one is about control.

 

[cardgame]

I feel like my signature is highly relevent for these last couple pages. For posterity, in case I change it: "Expectations are pre-meditated resentments"

I actually adopted it from experience. Went over for what I thought was a booty call, because we had had such a thing in the past. Turns out, nothing happened (that night*). I felt resentment towards my (non) partner, and here I had two options: one, act like an incel, get mad at them even though they did absolutely nothing wrong, and maybe even throw away the relationship by being a dumbass. Option two, introspection and reconciliation with reality. I thought about why I had this expectation and realized it was based on nothing and furthermore it was actually kind of gross. There's nothing wrong with expectations in general, but it can be worth diving in there and trying to understand why you have certain ones.

*later on, things did indeed escalate. Now if I had acted like a super-entitled incel, that would have been off the table forever. self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Ryika]

=>

Then what does the sentence...

"My expectation towards a potential partner that he has black hair."

...mean in your opinion?

Does it not simply mean that one has a preference for black hair that is so big, that one is not willing to accept a partner who does not have that attribute?

If not, explain what you think it means.

 

[sophie]

"My expectation towards a potential partner that he has black hair."

Perhaps, but notice a change in nuance of meaning between that and

"When I see you tonight, I expect you to have black hair"

Sure one way to read that is as a prediction about future events, but another way is as an expression of power. You will do these things because I want them to happen.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's an unusual use, and it's one shitheads would primarily adopt when they can actually enforce repercussions.

I also expect people to speed. I expect flat tires on the road. I expect that some people will steal. I expect some people will be rapists. I expect some people will be chaste on purpose. I expect people I choose to be my friends will not share these traits equally.