By David Futrelle
So here’s a screenshot floating around the internet that offers a sensible, common-sense solution to the problem of incels literally murdering people because they’re angry no hot women with have sex with them.
And by “sensible” and” “common-sense” I mean, “what the fucking fuck is this fuckery?”
Here’s the full text if you’d rather not squint at that:
People make is sound as if the “Incel Rebellion” is a laughing matter and that people don’t understand problem.
The incels are not the problem, but rather they are a symptom that something is very wrong in our society — and unless their legitimate grievances are addressed this could very soon spiral out of control just like what happened in Iraq, Libya and Syria when their respective governments refused to address and deal with the legitimate grievances a portion of their popolation had.
Calling the Incels a bunch of virgins and “frustrated losers with communication skills equal to that of an autistic potato” is oversimplifying the problem yes they are all that but why are they frustrated virgins?
The real issue is that with the advancement of makeup, healthy at any size bullshit, feminism and through social engineering a lot of women have become detached from reality. The reason these Incels arn’t getting laid is because women with a sexual market value equal to theirs use makeup to go from a 3/10 – 7/10 (false marketing in my opinion and should be a punishable offense) to fuck with men above their league.
So I propose that rather than making Incels look bad we look at the reasons they’ve become this way and what steps we can take to deconflict and reverse things because, let’s be real calling them names, labeling them a terrorist organization etc isn’t going to make the problem go away.
There are several ways I propose we do this:
1) Women are no longer allowed to wear makeup, ie falsely advertise their beauty and hence stop them from banging guys above their league.
2) Women are only allowed to date men with equal sexual market value to them. State-mandated tests should be made and everyone get a sexual-market value card ranging from 1/10 to 10/10, like an ID card.
3) Every time a woman sleeps with a new man she lose one 1 rank on her sexual-market value card until she reach the lowest rank 1/10.
4) There’s no way to rise through the ranks other than through excercise
5) Women with more than 9 sexual partners and single moms should be forced by the state to date and have sex with incels that can’t get any women despite the above changes.
This would deal with the problem not the symptom and is the ay we deal with everything from counter-piracy to counter- terrorism. The incel threat is real and should be treated the same way.
Though I haven’t been able to track this screenshot to its source, my guess — as someone who has been reading this sort of shit for years — is that it’s a sincere post from an incel sympathizer. If it’s a parody, and I really don’t think it is, it’s pitch-perfect, written by someone who has utterly mastered contemporary internet misogynist logic.
H/T — r/BadEconomics via Talia Lavin on Twitter.
Even if this little pussy redistribution scheme wasn’t grotesque and repugnant, it wouldn’t ever get off the ground, because the men would never agree on the standards of attractiveness for their stupid numerical scores, anyway.
@scildfreja
Ignoring the facts is a form of reasoning for these people, indeed, for the entire population of the conservative social/political spectrum
I debated a trumpanzee on black people getting into college ahead of whites (a part of “white genocide, y’know), and when I pointed out that the percentage of white college grads was rising relative to the percentage of white population, while the percentage of black college grads was falling relative to the percentage of black population, they countered with (paraphrasing) “nuh-uh, everyone knows …”
So much hatred and unwillingness to see female people as human beings. Ugh.
At least this part was on the mark (emphasis added):
‘Calling the Incels a bunch of virgins and “frustrated losers with communication skills equal to that of an autistic potato” is oversimplifying the problem yes they are all that but why are they frustrated virgins?’
I’m not completely averse to the notion of a Sexual Market Value. Having a graduate degree in economics, I like valuing the ‘invaluable’. But this dude’s metric is all fucked up.
Ha ha, under his scoring my SMV, if it could be, is negative. The amount of men I’ve ‘banged’ – my child, my fatness and my oldness. I can’t even exercise to ‘move up’ because of an injury. (OK, I could swim, but I hate swimming). Yet, I’ve attracted a man who I think is super hot. Ok, he’s not everyone’s cup of tea – his wrists are small. He’s geeky. He lost his virginity after university. But man alive, he’s got some amazing canthal tilt.
What our metric-maker here doesn’t get is that attraction is not purely physical. My super hot guy likes me because I’m clever and fun and nice and I have some pretty good bedroom skills from banging all those dudes and from paying attention and actually enjoying pleasing my lover.
I don’t really care that he fails to value me properly. Their problem is that fail to value themselves properly. It isn’t their looks – as many have pointed out – their problem is their personality is stanky and repulsive.
So I’m curious about this rape-slavery idea of theirs. What happens to sexually frustrated gay and bi men? Do they get paired with a random male rape-slave of an equal sexual market value? Will the men putting forward the idea of rape-slavery be willing to volunteer to be rape-slaves?
@Proffie : the autistic part make it not even right. If only because autism don’t manifest in that way at all.
Ugh.
So… we should prevent future terrorism by doing exactly what the terrorists want? How about no?
Sex (or the lack thereof) is not the problem, because these creeps don’t want sex. They want to hurt women. That’s it.
If, for some ungodly reason, they actually got a 10 Virgin interested in them, would they be happy? No. They’d be whining about how they’re sure she’s only using them for “beta bux” or some shit. They’d be slut-shaming her if she used makeup, and calling her a fat cow who’d let herself go if she didn’t. If she worked, they’d complain she wasn’t paying them sufficient attention, and if she didn’t they’d complain about having to support her. No woman can win with these creatures, because their entire investment is in us losing. They have set up an entire fantasy world where women can do no right, and then whine that we won’t step into it.
They have the souls of abusers and rapists, but they don’t even have the gumption to do the awful shit they talk about. They want the world back to women being property, and all they can do is whine that their nasty little fantasy isn’t happening.
Even when they do decide to take some action, they don’t have the courage to stick around and face the consequences. Eliot Rogers killed himself rather than face jail. The latest murderer clearly showed he wanted to go down in a hail of police bullets…it was only the coolness of the officer that prevented that. Cowardice on top of entitlement on top of dehumanisation. There is nothing too bad to say about these fucksticks.
They are rabid dogs. There is no negotiating with rabid dogs. There is nothing to do but isolate and destroy them. Let’s get working on these websites, people.
Yeah it’s like “prevent islamist terrorist attacks by letting IS take over and run your country”.
You can’t extort social change via random temper tantrums with guns.
1) The population has to be persuaded that there is genuine injustice going on. It’s difficult to see any injustice in bitter, misogynistic abusers not getting sexual access to supermodels.
2) The injustice has to be codified in law and enforced institutionally. You’d be hard-pressed to find a societal conspiracy to “keep the virgin down”, particularly where most of these guys are white men, who are already a protected class. No laws exist saying that virgin men have unequal access to jobs, education, stores, etc. The issue here is simple cause and effect: women don’t want to be around hateful men who view them as chattel. (Shocking, I know.) You can’t remedy through courts and Congress what was never a legal issue to begin with. You might as well try to legislate against gravity.
2) The oppressed have to be seen as willing to put their own lives on the line – to endure fire hoses, bombings, beatings, prison, and police dogs. Incels are putting other people’s lives on the line, figuratively and literally. If they aren’t willing to be even mildly inconvenienced for their beliefs, why should we take them seriously?
3) The goal should be a better world for all, not simply an inversion of the existing order. Incels don’t want to be happy. They want the rest of the world to suffer and burn along with them.
“If one is in search of a better job, it does not help to burn down the factory. If one needs more adequate education, shooting the principal will not help, or if housing is the goal, only building and construction will produce that end. To destroy anything, person or property, can’t bring us closer to the goal that we seek.”
-MLK Jr.
@Tosca
Beautifully said, hit the nail on the fuckin head there. They really have covered all bases with their lady hate, since all they do is look for excuses to hate ladies, it would be humanly impossible for anyone to fit their standards. But not just for the reasons you listed. Even if a perfect 10 without makeup trust fund billionaire virgin girl fell from the clouds into their laps and immediately loved them unconditionally, she would still have to age. Based on everything these guys say, on top of a virgin, they clearly want an 18 year old (but who are we kidding, a 14 year old). And last I checked, they think women turn into decrepit crumbling mummies on their 23rd birthdays. So they’ve totally backed themselves into a corner, it’s biologically impossible for any woman to be good enough for them.
But as I explained in detail in an earlier comment, no amount of women or sex will fix them, because this isn’t caused by a lack of sex, it’s caused by a sense of entitlement so massive that it collapsed in on itself and created a black whole from which humility and empathy cannot escape. Besides, they clearly don’t want to get better, they don’t want to be happy, they want to wallow in self-pity forever. Wasn’t there a post on here a while back about some incels taking offense to the concept of improving themselves and being happy?
There was, and they do take vigorous exception to the very thought.
@Dr Thang @Shadowplay
But they shouldn’t have to change one iota. Women should worship, sorry, love them just as they are.
We, on the other hand, should change everything and be several things that are diametrically opposed to each other at the same time. We should wear makeup, but be natural beauties. We should be forever 18. We should be slutty and highly sexed in bed but only for one guy. We can’t be fat, but also not too thin. We’d should work and contribute and not expect to be paid for, but also our man should be our first priority and we should be ready and waiting to make his sandwich at all times.
Hmm. This set of requirements sounds weirdly like the ones mainstream female culture attempted to impose on women as I was growing up.
If I can’t win, why would I waste my time playing??
Why punish promiscuous women like this? First, they gradually lose their SMV points and then, if they can’t stop being promiscuous, they’re made into some sort of sex slave. And why only women?
If this affects a significant number of women, there will be proportionally more women in the lower SMV ranks, some of them physically relatively hot and…ah, I get the point. That is, assuming the original ranking is done on a curve (no pun intended) to ensure equal numbers of men and women in each rank.
And, some of those physically relatively hot women assigned to 1/10 rank can’t even refuse dating 1/10 men – who can conveniently refuse dating ordinary 1/10 women. It’s the highest and most most noble of male aspirations, to always chase the hot women no matter how slight the chance. Now, you just have to decide what kind of lottery system is used to distribute the sex slaves, and how the slavery is enforced.
And, why punish single mothers? Here’s a protip: you might as well order sexual slavery with incels as punishment for whatever actual crimes women happen to commit. It makes at least no less sense. Or maybe just design a system that automatically assigns some conventionally hot women into the lower SMV ranks. Whatever you can hypothetically get away with.
I kind of think you can’t call yourself involuntarily celibate if your actual problem is that the women you want to have sex with aren’t knocking on your door and begging for sex.
Try being a female person who’s been told that all a woman has to do to get sex is ask a man, and add on to that autism and overwhelming social anxiety. I have but little sympathy for the incel crowd, and no sympathy at all for them when they advocate rape and/or murder.
Incels always insist that attraction is solely about looks. So why should having had lots of partners or being a single mom lower your SMV? It shouldn’t.
Why, it’s almost like they do actually realize that attraction – while often partly about looks – is not solely about looks. And that it’s not an issue of incels being too ugly for love. It’s almost like they just want to control women. Obviously, we already knew that. But maybe something to point out next time we get an incel troll. That it’s hypocritical to demand a virgin and then claim sex and dating is solely looks based. Because their have been a ton of single moms on America’s next top model. Clearly having sex and/or a kid doesn’t magically stop making a person conventionally attractive.
Makeup isn’t the only way those devious feeemales deceive men about their appearance. There’s also shaving, waxing etc. If you ban makeup, you should also ban all forms of body hair removal, for men as well as women.
While we’re on the subject of hair, isn’t hair styling dishonest? How can you know what someone really looks like if their hair is expertly cut and styled, and maybe even dyed? Their SMV could plummet if they decided to let their hair go natural. So, the only permitted hair care should be a government-standard bowl cut and regular washing and combing. Bald people would need to wear a badge to show that they are legally hairless.
Clothes, too, can make a huge difference to a person’s appearance. What if you’re fortunate enough to bag yourself a woman who wears sexy heels and a figure-hugging dress, only for her to switch to baggy dungarees and Ugg boots? The solution is for baggy dungarees and Ugg boots to be the only legal form of dress.
These modest measures would be a good starting point.
wwth
I think they believe that if a woman has sex it will change how she looks. because they believe such things like “thousand cock stare” and that woman’s body absorbs man’s DNA after sex and that the woman’s nose changes colour or some bullshit. it is all about looks for them – because they believe sex is that important and powerful, they make their whole identity about if they have sex or not!
@valentin
“… thousand cock stare …”
If this is a phrase that incels came up with, then good gods it’s been wasted on them. It sounds like something one could aspire to.
wwth, Valentin:
Usually what incels mean by “its about looks” is that to them, women won’t sleep with them because of their looks ergo women are shallow bitches, but when incels turn down women? Well obviously it’s for a good reason: like number of sex partners!
I’m not so sure they believe THAT strongly that sex literally changes a woman’s looks, but they definitely follow the “sex damages a woman” mentality since they’ve gobbled up the patriarchal narrative that virginity=value (in women only of course). Why some men in the 21st century cling so strongly to that narrative I’m not sure. Maybe it’s a possessive/competitive thing?
I swear, this whole “deduct 1 from SMV every time she has sex” is just more evidence of how invested they are in this idea that sex damages women. They desperately want that to be true. It’s a pretty nasty intersection of their sexual entitlement and hatred of women; I really think for a lot of these men that the “sex” they want is really proxy for degrading and harming women, they just think it’s the premier method to do that. Then the “incels” come along and basically say, well, women see through our attempts to harm them sexually so let’s harm them in other ways, go get your guns.
Goddamn these people are terrifying.
@Cyborgette:
It’s a phrase that is common throughout the manosphere; one hears it used by MGTOWs and MRAs as well as by incels.
@WWTH
Well. You see, all those single mums DO look like shit. They just cover it up with makeup. If makeup was made illegal, everyone would see the Mark of Satan on their collapsed thousand-cock faces.
@cyborgette
Yes, I kind of like that. I’ll add to my bucket list.
Learn Japanese
Own own home
Buy a Vampire’s Wife dress
Get an orchid to reflower
Try out getting tied up
Learn some basic electronics so I can at least have a crack at mending all the broken old shit in the lab
Tell Paul Elam to “bite my shiny metal ass”
Gain thousand cock stare