Categories
aggrieved entitlement crackpottery empathy deficit entitled babies incel irony alert jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape rape culture redistribution of sex sex sexual inequality

Incels: We shouldn’t pay taxes because women’s bodies are a “public good” that we don’t get access to

How incels see taxes

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:

The text:

Robo Sapien:

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.

Robtical:

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

>its enslavement

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

119 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bob Dole
Bob Dole
2 years ago

Back when The Spearhead was a thing there was a post about how women working at nonprofits amounted to “subsidizing sex” since it “enabled” them to have sex they otherwise would not, I’d link the FSTDT but it’s on the fritz again. The most noteworthy thing was that it was steeped in the libertarian MRA pretenses common before they went “screw it” and did Marxism-Rodgerism.

Moon_custafer
Moon_custafer
2 years ago

@ Bob Dole:
there was a post about how women working at nonprofits amounted to “subsidizing sex” since it “enabled” them to have sex they otherwise would not,

Wait, how does working for a non-profit, specifically, “enable” one to have sex?

I mean, I suppose it increases the number of people, and therefore the number of potential sex partners, you meet – but so does literally anything else that gets you out of your home.

Valkyrine
Valkyrine
2 years ago

@Gaebolga
That’s because they think prostitutes aren’t good enough for them, they want their “commodities” in mint condition. Blargh! >∆<

BritterSweet
2 years ago

“This incel will murder dozens of innocent people unless you women sacrifice your bodily autonomy to appease him.”

My first thought in response to that idea was why not just kill him first? Even if he does get what he wants, he’ll eventually just make demands and threats again and again. To prevent him from killing, this would be the most practical option.

Incels and others like them don’t even want to be content, they want to stay miserable so they can have a reason to abuse people, to be oppressors but still get to martyr themselves as heroic underdogs.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Twice as many of them voted to be tax-free rather than be both tax-free and provided with government-funded prostitutes.

That’s like getting a buy-one-get-one-free deal and saying “nah, I’ll don’t want the free one”…

A goid number of them don’t want the prostitutes, though.

Moggie
Moggie
2 years ago

Gaebolga:

Twice as many of them voted to be tax-free rather than be both tax-free and provided with government-funded prostitutes.

My guess is that a lot of them don’t know what “in lieu of” means.

But, about that: how does that wording (“incels should get prostitutes in lieu of taxes”) even make sense? “In lieu of” means “instead of”, “in the place of”, “as a substitute for”. But incels are not receiving tax money, so… ok, I’m over-thinking this.

Bob Dole
Bob Dole
2 years ago

@Moon_custafer

It’s working again, here’s the quote: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=129379

He’s effectively arguing against women working in general, since it leads to the same “subsidy” with the same supposed effects, but it’s coached in libertarianism because this was when he was trying to maintain plausible deniability.

Richard
Richard
2 years ago

Yep. Women ‘should’ be dependent on a man to eat so that unlovable creeps can get laid.

Yeeg these people.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

Women ‘should’ be dependent on a man to eat…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYp_Xi4AtAQ

Be careful what you wish for, manospherians…

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
2 years ago

Libertarians will find all sorts of weird ways to pretend that they’re “paying for” things they don’t like. “My taxes pay [a tiny portion of] this woman’s salary at the nonprofit therefore I’M PAYING FOR HER BIRTH CONTROL. MISANDRY!”

I wonder what he thinks of women who work for government agencies.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

My council tax is used to pay local authority employees.

One of my mates works for the council and the other day he left his car running whilst he popped something in the post box.

So I’m am literally being forced to contribute to global warming.

Big government made me a polar bear murderer!

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
2 years ago

It’s also just struck me, and this revelation is probably way overdue, that the reason libertarians might perform mental gymnastics to claim that they’re “paying” for something they don’t like is to make it sound like their grievances have legitimacy. “We MUST curb female sexual agency because MUH HARD EARNED MONEY. I have skin in this game dammit! Don’t MY rights matter too?”

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

it turned out that sex still had a lot of associated costs. Pregnancy, of course, is one of the biggest. At first, we socialized that, but then welfare reform threw the costs entirely onto fathers (not mothers, mind you).

Wow, I never knew that they developed a way to shift the physical toll of pregnancy and childbirth onto the father. Why aren’t more people using this?

Oh that’s right, I forgot, women’s bodies are only valuable as an object to be used to sexually satisfy men, and have no inherent value for being the physical embodiment of a person. Therefore, the only cost associated with pregnancy is that of the monetary costs and of the sad, sad limitation of that woman’s vagina to any given man’s penis during periods of recovery.

And of course, everyone knows that children are incredibly cheap and that more than 100% of their costs and care are covered by child support. Women never have to pay any money towards their children. /sarcasm

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

Yeah, it hasn’t escaped by notice that there has been income tax in America since the Civil War but there was nary a libertarian in sight until the early 1970s or so. As soon as the government started saying “You can’t discriminate against blacks or women anymore”, though, bam! Suddenly you can’t throw a stick in some places without hitting a libertarian. And where do you find the greatest concentration of them? In southern and northwestern parts of the country where there is also the greatest concentration of white supremacist militias and similar activity. The main exception being the southeastern “Bible belt” areas, presumably because the local bigots there would prefer a theocracy to anarchy.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

@Catalpa:

Who are you quoting? I can’t find the original anywhere on this thread, including the OP and the other two pages of comments. Did you post your reply to the wrong thread by mistake?

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
2 years ago

@Surplus

The quote is from the link that Bob Dole posted.

Kitty
Kitty
1 year ago

Back in my day, guys who couldn’t get laid didn’t brag about it. they lied about it.
Maybe these incels could learn job skills to earn the money they need to live rather then being enabled by their parents to spend their lives online and actually contribute to society

Even Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, David Bowie and Motely Crew paid prostitutes to get what they wanted.

I’ve been with virgins of both genders and they are over rated

kitty
kitty
1 year ago

as far as the title of this blog, no incel ever went hunting much. that would involve going outside away from their phones and computers where they spend their days playing video games instead of bathing and working

Aya
Aya
1 year ago

Men own more property. Women own less than 20% I’m pretty sure, so isn’t that why they pay more taxes? They have more stuff to be taxed?