By David Futrelle
Pity the poor incels, who are not only oppressed by snooty women who refuse to have sex with them just because they’re “pretty sure this guy would murder me and use my skin to make a fedora,” but also have to pay taxes.
Now, because of that first thing, incels think they shouldn’t have to do the second thing. Like many of their manosphere brothers, you see, incels are convinced that women live lives of ease, heavily subsidized with the money that Big Daddy Government extracts from hardworking male taxpayers like them (assuming they’re not living the incel dream, sitting pretty in mom’s basement without the bother of a job).
But at least non-incel men get to have sex with the women they supposedly subsidize with their tax dollars. Since these women (aka femoids, aka foids) are basically living off the government, their bodies are a “public good” that incels are unfairly being denied access to.
On Incels.me, the largest incel forum outside of Reddit, one unhappy taxcel recently demanded what he sees as justice:
Since wagecuckcels are funding a public good that we don’t get access to, who else here thinks that verified incels shouldn’t be taxed? Or at least given prostitutes as fair compensation for state programs that go to foids? Let me know your thoughts gentleman.
We should either not be taxed at all or given weekly prostitutes.
Robo Sapien posted a little poll, and those who clicked on it overwhelmingly agreed:
Aggrieved entitlement in action!
The unfairness of taxes is a longtime obsession of incels. In a Incels.me thread last December, someone calling himself Dry Spell argued that women should have to pay higher taxes than men because
it’s too easy for them to make money. Women can literally flash (part of) their boobs on youtube and make easy money. They don’t even have to be super attractive.
Another commenter had a slightly more radical idea. “Women must not pay taxes,” wrote Incelman. “Thye must have sex with an incel instead.”
In another December thread, a regular commenter called wandercamp suggested that women should be forced to pay a “sex tax” — not a tax on having sex, but a tax in the form of sex — in order to prevent the sexual frustration that he thinks leads incels to seek “retribution” through mass killings.
“What would have saved the lives that ER ended?” he asked.
Sex. Thats it. 20 minutes and all of those young women would be alive.
But apparently thats too much to ask after a weekend long cock train that your average sorority sister rides each saturday.
So its simple, we make it mandatory for women to sleep with incels.
>b-but thats oppressiv…
Shut up. You wont put out for 20 minutes to save the lives of 7 people?
>we need to examine his mental state
>our culture led to this
who cares? We want to save lives. Put out. Its that simple. You can spend 50 years researching sexual culture to solve the problem of homicidal virgins or you can put out.
>but sex is personal
Obviously not if you defend casual sex
No its not. You work a certain amount of hours each week to pay taxes, and you dont call it enslavement. Requiring some of your sex to be with incels should be no problem
Stated this baldly, these various proposals to combat alleged “sexual inequality” by giving incels tax breaks and/or forcing women to have sex with them are obviously deeply offensive and completely absurd. But as I’ve said before these spurious solutions — and the perverse logic behind them — are not that far off in spirit from the more carefully worded “solutions” to so-called sexual inequality that have begun to seep into the popular discourse.
Like wandercamp here, George Mason University economist Robin Hanson thinks that “involuntary celibacy” fuels mass murders and that reducing the celibacy would reduce the murders. Like so many incels, he sees sexual inequality is fundamentally analogous to income inequality and his proposed, er, solutions seem to come straight from the incel playbook. “Sex could be directly redistributed,” he wrote in a now infamous blog post after the Toronto van attack, “or cash might be redistributed in compensation”
That’s pretty much exactly what Robo Sapien was suggesting. But Hanson isn’t an anonymous commenter on an incel forum; he’s a tenured professor whose blog post on the “redistribution of sex” inspired a New York Times column that reached millions.
Meanwhile, psych-professor-turned-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson — the most influential representative of the so-called “intellectual dark web” — also thinks that men turn violent when they can’t have sex, and wants us to essentially reorganize society in such a way that women are essentially forced to marry the guys who now call themselves incels (though he now insists that his vision of “enforced monogamy” will somehow managed not to involve force, which makes one wonder why he used the word “enforced” in the first place).
Though both would vehemently deny it, both Hanson and Peterson are de facto apologists for incel terrorism. Their ideas are as dangerous as those of incels like Robo Sapien and wandercamp; unfortunately they are much more influential.