By David Futrelle
Well, here’s a new one, courtesy of some dude posting on the incel forum Truecels.org.
It’s amazing that something so brief can be so wrong in so many different ways. I don’t even know where to begin with this one, so I won’t.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
“Involuntary” implies that it’s something done to you and against your will. No one is forcing these guys to not have sex. It’s just circumstances. But their very name implies it’s coerced.
Not really, though, since you can talk about “involuntary reflexes” for instance, and that just means it’s reflexes you can’t control.
I agree with the rest that it’s fucked-up to use the word “incel” now considering what it means now (because meaning is use and all that), but you can’t argue based on the meaning of the constituent words alone that even the very first person to use it must have had some sinister designs.
But it’s redundant. We don’t say “inpoor” or “insick” because it’s assumed that most people in those circumstances didn’t choose them. Why should celibacy get singled out with a special prefix, if not to underscore the suffering and make the world feel extra guilty?
And from “the world should feel guilty”, it’s only a small leap to “the world owes me restitution”.
Because you can be voluntarily celibat, of course, for a variety of reasons.
I live in Seattle WA; we are entirely ‘vote by mail’. We have a paper trail if there is any question – can that be said by the electronic voting in person?
AFAIK, the word celibacy originally meant by definition deliberate refusal of marriage (and perhaps by implication sex), to distinguish from people who planned or just hoped to marry some day. In this sense, involuntary celibacy is a contradiction in terms.
No that I’m arguing from etymology, but it does seem a bit backwards even in modern context.
I do find “involuntary” to be a troublesome concept when applied to sex.
I understand what the thinking is – some people (like monks) volunteer to give up sex, and the “involuntary” is (or was originally) intended to distinguish people who wanted to have sex and found it difficult from groups like that.
But the problem is it does imply that an outside force of some kind is denying sex to people who would otherwise get to have it, and that’s not the case. Most people who have trouble dating have trouble because of internal factors like lack of confidence or bad social skills. Blaming outside forces/other people is easier, because one does not want to have to face the upsetting fact that one’s own behaviour needs changing (I know this from sad personal experience) so a term which places the blame squarely on external factors doesn’t help; it also becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, because once you have classed yourself as “involuntarily celibate” it’s going to be that much harder to get over that barrier. It’s just unhelpful. Even in the original context.
It would probably be more appropriate to use a term like, I don’t know, “sexually challenged” (although not actually that, because it sounds weird)
The involuntary part is never really true. Every time, they seem to be not incapable of finding a partner, but incapable of finding a conventionally attractive partner. This is true of every sad boner whiner. Not just the ones who call themselves incels.
Everyone has the right to their preferences and can be as picky as they like. But it’s a choice. Not something to feel oppressed about. If you’re stuck on only pining for the pretty and popular type, that’s your own fault.
Which brings me to the other big problem with even the supposedly non-misogynistic incels. They completely objectify women. They want arm candy to give them status and make them feel good about themselves. You never see them talking about wanting a partner to share their lives with and who has common interests and values. Even when they talk about a specific crush who rejected them, you never hear about who they are as a person and why the incel desires them beyond looks. Never do they seem to understand that we’re real people. Women to them are just meant to function as a balm for their troubled souls.
Of course they have no luck dating. And not due to looks.
Yeah, for me celibacy is a word that implies a voluntary choice, and strapping “involuntary” to it when we already have other words for not being sexually active is weird, at the very least.
It’s like saying “involuntary vegetarian”, instead of having food sensitivities. It’s something that signifies a sense of victimization, instead of just an undesirable condition. Which is problematic when applied to sexual activity, where all parties involved should be consenting.
Look, all I’m saying is… if you read the interview linked above with Alana, the woman who started the first “involuntary celibate” website, she doesn’t seem like a bad person at all. She had this period in her life when she was sad and lonely and lacked intimacy, and wanted a website where other people in the same situation could talk. Eventually she did find people to date and left the website to some other person she didn’t really know, and the rest is history.
Did she chose the best words ever to describe her situation? Maybe not. Maybe it would have been slightly more accurate if she’d called the website “site for sexually challenged people” or whatever. Did she chose words that in themselves are evil and imply all kinds of entitled and rapey shit? I just can’t see that! Seems to me that people in this thread try hard to hang quite heavy arguments on a flimsy peg of etymology that can’t really support their weight.
Also, I think it’s pretty pointless to argue that the words are evil in themselves. It’s perfectly sufficient to note that the incel movement now is horrible, and that the term therefore, now, is not something people should use about themselves.
Possibly, though, we’ll simply have to agree to disagree on this one.
I wouldn’t say that the words are inherently evil- no words are inherently evil, they’re just noises and symbols. It is the context and the history of the words that makes the words harmful.
The term as it was coined has some contextual elements that are problematic, but so do plenty of other terms. It doesn’t automatically guarantee that the movement was going to go down a dark path. (There are, after all, many awful movements that specifically choose 100% innocent, positive sounding terms to describe themselves, e.g. Pro-life.)
However, given the amount if aggrieved entitlement that is festering in our society regarding women’s sexual agency, I do think it was inevitable that the term would be co-opted by bitter, hateful assholes. Is that the fault of the woman who made the term? No. But at this point the term can no longer be argued to be an innocent one.
I just imagined calling myself “involuntarily gluten free” and it just feels wrong. I *could* have a nice, crispy wheat baguette if I wanted. It would make me very sick, and over time could kill me, so I choose not to. That’s a voluntary action I take. Just like when I opted not to even reply to people with red flags on dating sites. Yeah, there’s an extra layer of victimhood there. It’s gross.
@Dvärghundspossen
I’m not saying the woman who coined the term is bad or evil or whatever. But at the time she was focusing on this as a part of her identity, she was being at least a little entitled. She obviously realized her thought patterns were toxic and pulled herself out of it. Anyone could potentially do the same. But people currently claiming the title are currently being toxic and gross. They could change. But they’re currently choosing not to.
Re: Notallincels
There is, at any given time, an unknown percentage of individuals who are circling the drain in a diminishing spiral, rather than diving headlong into it. These individuals are still at the point where, in theory, intervention is possible. They got drawn into a forum where they thought they’d commiserate about datelessness (akin to the woman who created the term’s intent), and instead are now being radicalized by a toxic community, but they haven’t given over their whole identity to it, yet. So, sure, such individuals exist. But they are perpetually in danger of becoming a danger–maybe physical, maybe just social–to those around them, and it’s not fair to expect people to remain in a situation like that.
Heebee, Voxpoptart: If your friends are actual in such a spiral, and you want them to be happier (because you care for your friends’ mental and/or spiritual health), then it’s your duty to do everything you can, up to and including laying down ultimatums if necessary, to pull them out of that spiral–the same as you might have to with a friend who was poisoning their body with addictive drugs or other self-destructive behavior, or slowly being absorbed into a cult (and seriously, that’s not a bad explanation of inceldom). And you’re the only ones in a position to determine, as best you can, which approaches to intervention are going to most effective for those individuals at their current non-radicalized state. But it’s not the responsibility of anyone else here to acknowledge their nice-guyness while they’re still actively identifying as part of a hate movement, even if they, themselves, don’t seem to be overtly hateful right now.
(OTOH, you COULD use this community as a resource for that intervention. We’ve got people who’ve been at low points in their lives, or who’ve known folks there, where the step to misogyny wouldn’t have been unthinkable. We know the mindset, and have at least some insight into what it takes to break out of it. If you come explicitly looking for help of this nature, asking for arguments and actions you might use to get your friends into a better place, you’ll find a wealth of experience to tap. Don’t try to explain your friends’ complaints–believe me, we already understand them.)
Theres always going to be things we can do and things we cant do. No one can have everything, I think what incels (not just incels most people tbh) lack is a sense of perspective. An appreciation of what you DO have, what you CAN do, and your strengths.
Its human nature to be obssesed about what you dont/cant have rather than focus and be thankful for what you DO have.
Im willing to bet incels have (or had before they turned so toxic) a lot going for them in their lives which they just choosed to ignore.
One incel I knew was a 26 year old virgin but amazing at chess. Kicked my ass. But he didnt even play chess often! He just spent his time on these toxic self pitying forums.
Tip to him : Less romance talk more DAMN CHESS. YOUR GOOD AT IT, OWN IT for god sake
“Involuntary” implies that it’s something done to you and against your will. No one is forcing these guys to not have sex. It’s just circumstances. But their very name implies it’s coerced.
First of all, at its most basic “involuntary” simply means “out of your control.” I will, however, agree that “involuntary celibate” does connote dissatisfaction with a persistent situation.
But this doesn’t imply that the situation is deliberately imposed. You say that it’s just “circumstances,” but one could argue that it is these circumstances that are keeping the “incel” from having sex. That’s not really entitlement; it’s an accurate description of the situation.
That being said, even if we could hypothetically strip the term from all its baggage, I don’t think it’s a particularly good foundation for a healthy community, or a good label to build one’s identity around. And that’s because it’s inherently negative: a description of something that you don’t like about yourself, something that you wish you could change and that probably causes you pain and shame. And stewing on what you hate about yourself can lead to an unattractive persecution complex, which itself can lead to vicious circle of ever-increasing anger, resentment, and self-loathing. Which is, in my opinion, more or less how the modern incel movement formed.
Ultimately, that’s my problem with the word itself, not that it contains some kind of embedded “entitlement.”
100000% Agreed Aaron.
However, most incels do feel entitled
WHY?
Because of this “someone for everyone” saying that gets brandies around. A pot for every hole. Society promising men that romantic success “sex, dates marraige, relationship whatever”, is a fixed point on their timeline (someone for everyone …right!). And when it doesnt happen (or no signs are presenting that it could happen), those men get bitter, angry, frustrated and feel like theyve not been given something they are owed (and have been told it is an inevitablility)
Trigger warning: self-harm, suicide
@Aaron: What I find odd is how the incel community has become so outwardly focused in hatred and violence, yet self-harm “communities”, specifically the ones that encourage harming as opposed to support communities, or any number of online mental/physical/chronic condition groups, chatrooms, etc that end up spiraling into hopeless ideation, never end up being the source of the next serial killer. I mean, most incels are not suffering from any actual daily physical pain or impairment, emotionally traumatic past or clinical condition, yet they lash out at the world as if their experiences are worse than any other human being on the planet.
Well, that is if ‘odd’ is a synonym for ‘mindblowing’ and ‘horrifying’ and also ‘repulsive’.
I think there are various reasons for this, a big one being that incel emerged out of the manosphere, which is characterized by outward hatefulness toward women, male lackeys, etc. The incels just take that tendency and ramp it way up, because their bitterness is more profound. (And I get it – people tend to be more emotionally volatile when it comes to personal woes, and incels think in very personal terms.)
But I would also argue that incel – whatever else it is – is itself self-harm, and not in an abstract “hatred is like drinking poison” sort of way. When they’re not talking about how disgusting women are, they’re talking about how disgusting they are. They refer to themselves explicitly as subhuman. Their usernames are references to their own physical repulsiveness. They post “rate me” threads and spend their time tearing each other down. It’s psychological self-harm, not really so different from cutting yourself. I actually find the incel dynamic to be much more comprehensible than some of their extremist cousins, like the MGTOWs and their ilk. But maybe that’s my own bias.
If you got trapped in a well, would you call it involuntary confinement? I’m not talking about the dictionary definition, but of how we use the word. In this context, it implies something being done against your will. And the thing being done against one’s will is…not consenting to sexual intercourse. And if you disagree that’s what incel means, just spend five fucking minutes there.
But hey, it’s great you’re arguing for a group of people who want me dead because a very, very small portion of them only hate the fact I have a choice in whom I fuck, rather than full on cheering for murder of people like me.
@Aaron: That’s the shocking part though, no other self-harm group on the planet has vomited out so many mass murderers, at least that I know of, and most definitely not in so short a timespan.
I don’t have any hard evidence of this, but personally I suspect that the reason why incels produce so many spree killers is precisely because they DO have it easy. Men are given essentially a free pass when it comes to sexual entitlement, and people fall over themselves to defend the poor, unfortunate dudes who are just so, so lonely. Even here, where the atrocities of the incels are laid out clearly for all to see, we have folks coming out of the woodwork to talk about how their “friend” definitely isn’t saying anything dangerous or displaying any warning signs! No, no, not at all. Maybe a smidge of entitlement, but nothing to be concerned about. The most important thing to worry about is that random people on the internet might judge ALL incels harshly, which is, like, totally unfair. It’s critical to make random people on the internet know that #notallincels are dangerous, and that definitely no one they know in their REAL life could possibly be a threat to any woman.
For people who are unaware of the depths of how shitty the incels are, I bet that the sympathy for the incel-inclined is even higher.
It makes it really easy for the incels to engage in stochastic terrorism, because all their ranting and hatefulness and warning signs are handwaved away to be just totally normal harmless masculine behaviours. They’re just frustrated! The ones inclined to actually rape and murder are camoflagued by and egged on by the ones that aren’t at that point (yet), and no consequences for the behaviour are faced until after another killing spree happens, and then only to that one incel.
Well, if anondump blames social security for his not being able to buy – or at least rent – women, he might consider moving to the UK, where the new social security system of Universal Credit has in fact driven women into selling sex to feed their families.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/universal-credit-women-sex-work-prostitution-frank-field-esther-mcvey-a8584896.html