Categories
alt-right creepy cuck empathy deficit entitled babies evil sex-rejecting ladies femoids incels men who should not ever be with girls ever men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape culture reddit roasties sexual abuse sexual exploitation

Incel hopes to find desperate runaway girls and abuse survivors to exploit for sex

Incels: The real creepers

It’s PLEDGE DRIVE time again! WHTM is ad free and entirely dependent on folks like you for its continued existence. If you can afford it, please DONATE HERE NOW! Thanks!

By David Futrelle

Over on the noxious incel forum Truecels.org, one of the resident creepers has a new idea that is actually one of the oldest ideas ever thought of by a human male: exploiting the most vulnerable teenage girls he can find for sex.

He hopes to find these girls on Reddit’s Runaway subreddit, a forum designed to provide resources and support for runaway youths.

“I … have been thinking about finding girls on /r/Runaway who come from abusive households and wish to start a new life somewhere else,” writes FakecelsOUT, a regular commenter on Truecels.org.

I can relate to them because I, too, want to escape my present situation. The biggest difference is that I have over $50,000 in my emergency/runaway fund that I could use to provide both of us with a better life.

What an altruist!

These girls may be more receptive of me — and more forgiving of my terrifying face — because of their desperate circumstances. Over time, they could pair bond with me in a way that normal roasties are incapable of doing because they’ve taken so many cocks during their prime years.

Yes, I’m sure these girls will truly “pair bond” with a creepy asshole trying to exploit their vulnerability. Truly the basis for a loving, long-term relationship.

The feminists and cucks would probably believe that I am “taking advantage” of them, when in reality, I am saving them while also saving myself. It’s a mutually-beneficial arrangement, which angers the feminists because they don’t want to see any truecel being happy.

Yeah, that’s not why feminists, “cucks” and decent people generally would object to this plan. But, no, you shouldn’t be having sex with anyone.

They only want to see us alone, miserable, dejected, bitter, sexually unfulfilled, and completely devoid of love/intimacy. They are spiteful people who don’t even want prostitution to be legal in the U.S. because that would give people like us a sexual outlet.

If FakecelsOUT is just interested in sex, you might wonder, why wouldn’t he hire a prostitute? Because that’s not really what he wants. He wants a young girl so desperate she has no other options but him, and he wants to control her life utterly with the money he’s saved up for this purpose.

“You could offer food, shelter, and water to girls on the street,” one of the site mods helpfully adds,

and the first few times would be altruistically but then once she becomes dependent on you then you state that you can’t be so charitable without compensation.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the plan in a nutshell, dude.

Others on the forum warn the budding altruist-with-stings-attached that these “runaway punk rock girls” tend to be a lot more street-smart than he might expect. But he’s determined not to let the girls he’s exploiting exploit him back.

“Our arrangement would be conditional on me getting my sexual/romantic needs met in exchange for her getting a chance to get back on her feet,” FakecelsOUT explains in a followup comment,

Even if she ditched me as soon as she became established in a new locale, I would at least have good memories to fall back on — unlike my current 36 year-old self who only knows of rejection and IODs [Indicators of Disinterest] from women since hitting puberty 25 fucking years ago!

In another comment, he adds:

The money that I would spend in this type of arrangement would be significantly less than having to pay for an engagement ring, wedding, expenses during marriage, and divorce settlement if I went the “traditional” route like a sucker. … I’m just looking to get my dick wet for once in my pathetic life, and have no problem TEMPORARILY using money as leverage because that’s the only leverage I have as a legitimate 1/10 truecel whose monstrous face repeatedly scares foids away!

Happily. FakecelsOUT isn’t going to be able to put this particular “experiment” into action — as someone has already gone to the Runaway subreddit to warn them about him.

Hopefully, FakecelsOUT  won’t figure out some other way to target desperate young girls. Unfortunately, of course, many others have: homeless girls and young women are routinely preyed upon by predatory “altruists” like him.

And, I should add, by other manosphere types. Indeed, all the way back in 2011 I wrote about a truly depraved post on slimy loser Matt Forney’s old blog In Mala Fide advising horny but frugal men to turn to “freshly homeless young girls” as a cheap alternative to prostitutes.

NOTE: If you would like to genuinely help runaways and keep them out of the hands of scumbags like these, or if you’re in a desperate situation yourself, please contact the National Runaway Safeline, which offers 24-hour phone and online chat as well as numerous other resources. Volunteer opportunities are available. (This is an American organization; feel free to suggest resources in other countries in the comments.)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

150 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kupo
kupo
1 year ago

I don´t think a “no woman could ever love me” guy is necessarily dangerous to women or that he would be especially likely to treat women badly in say his workplace or to vote for sexist policies and so on.

I do. It’s very subtle how unconscious bias plays out in the workplace, but it’s there and it’s painful and we (the targets) have to deal with it every. single. day. in small ways that are too small to ever come to our bosses with, assuming our bosses are even people we feel we can trust with this, and HR sure as hell won’t care about anything that won’t result in a lawsuit and if it is at that level they’ll penalize us for it.

Every day I deal with people talking over me, taking credit for my work, and ideas, only listening to my ideas after they’ve been repeated by a man, scrutinizing my work harder than the work men put up for review, re-doing my work because they would have made different choices (we’re talking small things here, which probably compile down to the same instruction set and where both approaches accomplish the same thing and are within the established style rules), etc. etc. Yeah, guys like heebee/MRAL probably don’t punch women in the face every time they see them, but maybe they’re less likely to trust them than men. But it’s not women, they tell themselves, it’s just their gut feeling about this one woman. And most of it is just not even realized, like the talking over thing or the not realizing the idea was good until a man said it. They don’t even know they’re doing that because it’s not an active action they’re doing. It’s heuristics. Their brain recognizes a pattern and response instinctively to it. They probably picked it up from others without even realizing it.

That doesn’t mean it’s not death by a thousand papercuts for me, just because the intent isn’t there. The harm is still there.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

@hapnadsmannen- the pushback is for heebee, but also for anyone reading this.

The idea that if you ‘don’t feed the trolls’ they will magically leave without causing harm is wrong. Trolls make space unwelcoming for people who are usually the ones who could really use the community. Trolls can change the tone of a space enough that only the dominant group is confidant or secure enough to remain and still make their voices heard. The troll toll is the voices of a diverse commentariat we could be hearing from.

Pushing back shows those choices that they can comment here. That people here will call this shit out. That it won’t stand.

Maybe we’ll get through to heebee. Someone did get through to that one member of westboro, after all. But maybe we’ll help someone who is flirting with these ideas hear why they are wrong. Or maybe we’ll help someone who is suffering from someone who shares these ideas articulate what is wrong.

The pushbacks are always at least half for the lurkers.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
1 year ago

Context is also important. It’s one thing to have a time of self pity after being dumped or rejected and say to yourself or a friend “I’m so ugly, and that’s why no one will ever love me.” Or to tell your therapist that you’re having those feelings. It’s quite another to enter a discussion about violently misogynistic incels and try to discuss the plight of men who aren’t conventionally attractive. The point of the discussion is the misogyny and the alleged ugliness is not the cause of the misogyny. Entitled and aggrieved people will simply hang on to whatever is convenient. Just look at how seamlessly the transition was from MRAs or gamergaters to full blown Nazis for a so many when fascism became trendy. The incels will eventually move on to a different type of grievance too.

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
1 year ago

Reiterating what WWTH said.

The idea of “deciding to forego romance because it’s too much work” is fine, whether that work is grooming, social interaction, personal impediments of all sorts, whatever. That’s fine. no problem.

Walking into a conversation about the violence of entitlement-addled incels, being held amongst the victims and targets of incel aggression? And to not stop talking about it when asked? That’s entirely another.

He’s splurging his personal hangup all over the conversation, diverting from that conversation in a way that he knows is going to piss everyone off, he doesn’t care when he’s asked to stop, and he doesn’t engage when he’s confronted about the bad parts of what he’s saying.

You gotta cut that out, heebee. Please, for realsies.

Viscaria
Viscaria
1 year ago

@hapnadsmannen, you read this:

I actually dont mind the “I am ugly so I cant get laid” argument by incels.

And this:

Sure there are some people (cough, me cough hahaha) that wont be able to attract a woman because of their looks.

And this:

2- Some men arent cut out to date (not dateable material as they are just not physically attractive enough)

And this:

I am right, that some guys like me (and some women too) are too ugly to get laid.

And this:

Im just saying that some guys are destined to miss out and its better they accept it, make peace with it and concentrate on other aspects of life.

And this:

Some men and women are just too damn ugly to get laid. Or at least their odds are million to 1.

And this:

Its not a hit or a slant on women, it just means the guy is fucking butt ugly and its tough fucking shit. Not the womens fault either. Its natural selection, deal with it

And this:

Some PEOPLE (all genders/sex) cant get a partner- one of the reasons is that they arent attractive enough (but theres other reasons too- especially in incels case)

And you summarized it as “no woman could ever love me”? I find that remarkable.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
1 year ago

Everyone has feelings of inadequacy at some time, some stronger and more often than others. What is wrong here is entitlement. I second all the people who already tiredly said this to deaf ears. It’s a really good idea to share harmful thoughts with a good friend, or a therapist if you can afford one, or to go on a healthy forum and discuss(not 4chan, 8chan or the shit bits in reddit).

Most simply, this is about male entitlement, it is not about inadequacy, depression, so called ugliness or anything else. It is about people who are toxic masculine and entitled and basically will say anything to keep their belief. If it’s not inadequacy they justify, then it is “evil women” or “feminism” or “leftists”. The point – their belief never changes, there entitlement never changes, only the excuse. They use real issues to justify their entitlement and hatred. We are not criticising the issue that they claim – we are criticising the so obvious entitlement and mysoginy.

Bryce
Bryce
1 year ago

So, just out of curiosity, if you’re not going to drop this, what exact physical features make one too unattractive to ever find a partner? Be specific.

There’s already plenty of peer reviewed research on the role of things like facial symmetry on perceived attractiveness.

The idea that physical attraction standards should play no part in partner choice is utterly realistic. As an unattractive and awkward 39 year old who’s never dated, it’s tempting to fall into the trap of blaming the opposite sex for being too picky, but it’s not at all fair to do so because plenty of women also find themselves in similar situations. Acknowledging this doesn’t require one assign blame to others or society. It’s just reality for some people.

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

@Bryce
comment image

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
1 year ago

There’s already plenty of peer reviewed research on the role of things like facial symmetry on perceived attractiveness.

True. That doesn’t mean that all people with faces that aren’t very symmetrical never ever find a partner.

The idea that physical attraction standards should play no part in partner choice is utterly realistic.

Then it’s a good thing that no one has said this. Yes, obviously people who fit current beauty standards tend to have an easier time finding dates and/or sexual partners than people who don’t. However, not everyone is only attracted to people who are conventionally attractive. Also, unlike incels, a lot of men who not conventionally attractive form happy relationships with women who are also not conventionally attractive.

For instance, the common lament that women won’t date short guys. Well, I actually prefer guys who are on the short side. I’ve dated taller guys and height isn’t a huge deal to me one way or the other, but when I look back at who I’ve dated or been interested in dating, a pattern emerges. They tend to be kinda short. Perhaps the majority of women prefer tall men, but not all of us. And I can’t think of any women I’ve known who have ruled out ever dating a guy who isn’t tall. I’ve also mostly been with guys who are either on the skinny or pudgy side. I’m not into muscly dudes other than some celebs who are nice to look at but who I will never, ever be with.

Of course, I only find short guys hot if they don’t have a gigantic chip on their shoulders about it.

Anyway, tl;dr, if someone wants a partner, spends time and effort trying to find one, and absolutely cannot find a single person willing to date them, there is probably something else besides their appearance going on and a little honest self reflection is in order.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

@Bryce

“There are some physical features that make it difficult to find a romantic partner”

Is a statement that is accurate and reasonably unobjectionable.

“There are some physical features that mean that no woman will ever consider dating you.”

Is a shitty statement that paints all women as having the exact same preferences (at least to a minimum standard). Which indicates that the person making the statement does not consider that women may have just as many individual differences and tastes as men (and non-binary folks) do.

The two statements aren’t equivalent, and suggesting that we are reacting to the first sentiment and not the second one is indicative of some fairly willful blindness, especially when everyone can go back and read exactly what heebee wrote.

Bina
1 year ago

Once more for all the dudes at the back:

There are plenty of objectively unhandsome guys who’ve still managed to pair up, quite successfully. Some of them, with quite the succession of “out of their league” women. And no, it’s not because they’ve paid those women to keep them company, or thrown baubles and fancy cars at them either. It’s because they’re actually, genuinely NICE guys. Not Nice Guys™, who always SAY they’re nice while acting the opposite whenever a woman doesn’t respond the way they want her to. It’s because they accept themselves as they are, and also accept others are THEY are, and are nice to them consistently, without any preconceptions or prior expectations. They don’t stop being nice when a woman they want doesn’t want them back; they understand that being liked and appreciated, rather than madly loved, is just part of life, and they like and appreciate that, too. These guys may never be great sex gods, but they will never be incels either, because that fundamental problem all incels have — namely, a chip on the shoulder the size of Antarctica — is simply not part of their nature. These guys are attractive not because they LOOK attractive, but because they radiate goodwill and good humanity. When you can have a good time with someone just by being with them, you kind of want to be with them a lot.

No, there isn’t any formula or complex, arcane secret to it. It really is just as simple as that.

Megpie71
1 year ago

Dvärghundspossen – I didn’t think you were supporting PUAs.

My metaphor is fishing. Incels, like our friend Heebee and Eliot Rodger and so on, appear to be of the belief if they just have good enough fishing gear, the fish will leap out of the ocean and jump into their bucket (and if the fish aren’t doing this, it’s a problem with their gear, not their technique). PUAs have at least advanced to the point where they’re recognising no matter how good or bad your gear is, you’re definitely going to catch more fish if you put the hook in the water as well. Slightly smarter guys have worked out if you have the right bait on the hook, you’re going to increase your odds of catching the right sort of something even further. (Oh, and it goes without saying: you need to be in a place where there are fish to catch to begin with).

The ones who wind up in long term relationships, however, are the ones who have worked out women aren’t fish, but just as human as they are.

To haul this back to the original post (and really stretch the metaphor): our creepy exemplar up the top is basically hoping if he puts his fishing gear near a factory outflow, he’s going to get fish jumping into his bucket with minimal effort.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

Since this thread has already turned into the heebee show, I’ve been thinking about what heebee has said in this thread and elsewhere. I am really bothered by the way that he treats women as objects- robots that all function the same way based on 1’s and 0’s. Heebee sure was quick to declare that not all dateless men make toxic boyfriends in the other thread, so it’s not like he views dateless men as robots mindlessly following their 1’s and 0’s. Which is very curious. 🤔* (Also, wasn’t heebee talking about having a girlfriend in the other thread that was trying to set up his “friend”? Or was that “another” #notallincels?)

On the other hand, this isn’t the only argument that heebee is making. He says that he’s trying to pushback against the idea that every man has a soulmate waiting for him because he feels that it makes men feel entitled, frustrated, and depressed, which is honestly not an totally unreasonable argument. I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it? I mean, yes, heebee hasn’t asked every woman her tastes, so his comments about what “women” want are dehumanizing and factually wrong. Then again, asking every woman in the world out on a date is physically impossible, isn’t it? And who says that heebee has the emotional fortitude to withstand repeated rejections? Or dateless men in general?

Hell, look at how @Scildfreja put it.

“It’s that you’ve decided that it’s too much work, and you’d rather put that energy into other things.

Maybe I’m reading your statement wrong, but why imply that it’s laziness keeping all these men dateless? Rejection sucks- I have a hard time dealing with it myself. Unfortunately it’s part of finding someone compatible.

I don’t know. I’m still thinking thinky thoughts about this. Anyone else have any thoughts on what I’ve said?

Going back to @Megpie

” PUAs have at least advanced to the point where they’re recognizing no matter how good or bad your gear is, you’re definitely going to catch more fish if you put the hook in the water as well. Slightly smarter guys have worked out if you have the right bait on the hook, you’re going to increase your odds of catching the right sort of something even further.”

Well, I suppose that if you view women as mindless objects to be trolled for then it takes the sting out of rejection.

OR

I understand what you’re trying to say, but IMO describing trying to find a girlfriend in a predatory way (such as hunting or fishing) is still a little creepy. Maybe it’s just me.

*/sarcastic confusion
**scare quotes because I can’t seriously presume to speak for others. Maybe it’s just all me.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Heebee sure was quick to declare that not all dateless men make toxic boyfriends in the other thread. […] Also, wasn’t heebee talking about having a girlfriend in the other thread that was trying to set up his “friend”? Or was that “another” #notallincels?

That was all a different dude (or at least a different sock puppet): Voxpoptart.

Heebee spends way too much time whining talking about how simply being ugly makes some dudes undateable. He doesn’t have time to consider whether any of them would be good (or bad) partners for the other qualities they have. That would imply that women have some dating standards that don’t rely entirely on physical appearances.

We aren’t objecting to heebee or anyone else deciding to give up on dating. We’re objecting to him stating that all women are responsible (but not too blame, no, no, it’s completely natural for women to avoid people based on their appearance) for him being unable to date.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@Catalpa

“That was all a different dude (or at least a different sock puppet): Voxpoptart.

Mea culpa. Sorry @heebee, sorry @Voxpoptart, sorry @everybody.

“but not too blame, no, no, it’s completely natural for women to avoid people based on their appearance”

Ohhh, so was he the one that was arguing that women should embrace how shallow they are, because there’s nothing wrong with being shallow? 🙄

So, what about his point that the whole soulmate/”lid for every pot” thing is toxic and leads to resentment and entitlement, though?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Eh, technically that was a different sad boner troll talking about how “women are shallow but there’s no judgement involved in saying that!”. Personally I suspect that most of them are the same dude coming back with new sockpuppets, but I suppose I could be wrong. And they all kind of blend together anyway, which is probably why you thought that voxpoptart and heebee were the same.

To be fair, to my knowledge heebee never explicitly said anything about how women are shallow and that’s okay, I was just reading between the lines with his posts about how “some ugly men are just undateable” and “I’m not blaming women for not wanting to date people!”

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
1 year ago

It certainly led to him being toxic and resentful.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

So, what about his point that the whole soulmate/”lid for every pot” thing is toxic and leads to resentment and entitlement, though?

The pushback he was getting was all centered on his “women all have the exact same standards of attraction, with no possible deviation, unlike real people (men) who can have different preferences in what they want in a partner.”

His assumptions about who counted and who has agency are baked in to what he is saying.

That means that his assertions that he is trying to dismantle the “pot for every lid” concept mean that he is going about it with such misogynistic ideas that he’s doing as much harm as he’s trying to undo.

“Women have a standard. All women. If you aren’t conventionally attractive, make peace with that because no woman would want to be in a relationship with you. Also, you don’t need a relationship with this monolithic concept, you are enough by yourself.”

The thing is, you are enough by yourself. Not because no woman would ever have you, but because you should be seen as a complete person who would be complimented, not completed, by a relationship.

If anyone has decided that the effort they put in to finding romantic companionship is more than they want to spend, they are perfectly free to stop. But that is THEIR choice, not one that women (as an entire group) have made for them by declaring people who are 4s and under (where is this scale, btw??) Undateable, which gives our single friend no choice but to give in to the female hive mind.

This isn’t even getting in to the fact that ‘a pot for every lid’ assumes monogamy and heterosexuality.

You know who has been fighting for less compulsory pairing off? Feminists. Maybe our friend heebee here should listen to them, so he can ACTUALLY help.

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

Good reply, Rhuu.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@Catalpa

“And they all kind of blend together anyway, which is probably why you thought that voxpoptart and heebee were the same.”

They freaking do though. I’m going to have to get a notebook and start taking notes to keep them all straight.

@Rhuu

“That means that his assertions that he is trying to dismantle the “pot for every lid” concept mean that he is going about it with such misogynistic ideas that he’s doing as much harm as he’s trying to undo.”

/Agreed

I’m just super fascinated by the whole criticism of the soulmate concept. There must be some feminist analysis of the topic somewhere. 🙂

“If anyone has decided that the effort they put in to finding romantic companionship is more than they want to spend, they are perfectly free to stop. But that is THEIR choice, not one that women (as an entire group) have made for them…”

Of course it’s men’s choice. But again, why the negative judgment that stopping is an unwillingness to make the effort? Why can’t stopping be a mental health break? Or something else?

Finding and keeping relationships takes effort, but it’s not like there’s anything close to a guarantee of success when it comes to dating. So why describe finding someone solely in terms of effort and a lack thereof when other factors are involved?

@Hippodameia

It certainly led to him being toxic and resentful.

Ha! True, projection is one hell of a drug.

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

If anyone has decided that the effort they put in to finding romantic companionship is more than they want to spend, they are perfectly free to stop. But that is THEIR choice, not one that women (as an entire group) have made for them…”

Of course it’s men’s choice. But again, why the negative judgment that stopping is an unwillingness to make the effort? Why can’t stopping be a mental health break?

It’s not a negative judgement, at least not the way I’m parsing it. It isn’t negative or lazy to decide that there are certain things that aren’t worth your effort, it’s merely a decision, with no inherent positive or negative qualities. We have a limited time on this earth and everyone should be able to decide how they choose to spend it. (In reality, for many a large portion is expended on merely trying to stay afloat, but that’s neither here nor there.)

If I decide that I don’t want to expend my energy writing a novel and then chasing publishers for what could be years, then I don’t need to do that. Deciding that I want to learn Gaelic or perfect my chili recipe or catch up on the latest season of Brooklyn 99 instead are all options I can choose instead, all with different benefits or negatives. Does it mean I’m lazy for not wanting to write a novel? I wouldn’t say so. Is my decision caused by literally every reader on the planet having the exact same tastes that don’t align with what my novel would be? No, of course not, that would be stupid. But it certainly it’s possible that my novel idea is niche and finding interested readers may be more effort than I consider it to be worth.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

Of course it’s men’s choice.

Good so far…

But again, why the negative judgment that stopping is an unwillingness to make the effort? Why can’t stopping be a mental health break? Or something else?

Yes? As Catalpa put it above, it is a decision someone makes and there is no blame inherintly attached to it.

I mean, there is that negative stigma in a society that insists we pair up. Welcome to the patriarchy. But that is (once again) not what heebee is talking about. I was clarifying why he doesn’t get cookies and an “at least you tried” christmas card for having a position that, on the surface, seems like one we would welcome.

If you wish to discuss the pressure both men and women are under to pair off and then procreate, that is a diffrent discussion altogether.

You have a battery of energy for your day, and you decide how to spend it. Various life and personal circumstances tell you how big that battery is and how much it is charged for that day. If practising guitar is something you enjoy more that trying to find a partner, cool. You do you.

If your replies now have nothing to do with heebee, please indicate that, because you are currently having two discussions with different implications.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@Rhuu

“If your replies now have nothing to do with heebee, please indicate that, because you are currently having two discussions with different implications.”

Ok, fair enough. I’ll try to be as clear as I can.

Heebee can go fuck himself while taking a long walk off a short pier. He has never had any quarter with me. I don’t find his MGTOW-lite shit any less annoying than the full featured version. I’m not sure why this wasn’t at least a little bit clear to everyone else, but such is the results of obviously not explaining myself very well. :/

Let’s stop talking about heebee. 🙂 Let’s talk about how the concept of soulmates (or a “lid for every pot”) and the idea that people can gain romantic success solely through “effort” psychologically damages menpeople. 🙂

Off to work. I’ll finish this thought later. 🙂

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

You have a battery of energy for your day, and you decide how to spend it.

Yep. And right now, Red R. Lion, you are demanding of us that we spend some of that energy on you, soothing your hurt feelings and conceding to you that we are wrong and awful for the things you inferred from our conversation with heebee.

Edit:
What do you hope to gain from such a discussion? Feminism, especially intersectional feminism, already rejects it. We’re all in agreement. What’s to discuss?

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

I’m not sure why this wasn’t at least a little bit clear to everyone else, but such is the results of obviously not explaining myself very well. :/

… I mean…

Since this thread has already turned into the heebee show, I’ve been thinking about what heebee has said in this thread and elsewhere.

On the other hand, this isn’t the only argument that heebee is making. He says that he’s trying to pushback against the idea that every man has a soulmate waiting for him because he feels that it makes men feel entitled, frustrated, and depressed, which is honestly not an totally unreasonable argument. I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it? I mean, yes, heebee hasn’t asked every woman her tastes, so his comments about what “women” want are dehumanizing and factually wrong. Then again, asking every woman in the world out on a date is physically impossible, isn’t it? And who says that heebee has the emotional fortitude to withstand repeated rejections? Or dateless men in general?

I think I can be forgiven for my ‘mistake’. I don’t know how your thought process goes, aside from what you write, and things like this

So, what about his point that the whole soulmate/”lid for every pot” thing is toxic and leads to resentment and entitlement, though?

(emphasis mine) didn’t tell me that we are no longer talking about heebee.
comment image

(Though thank you for making it clear after I asked, I do appreciate that.)

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Let’s talk about how the concept of soulmates (or a “lid for every pot”) and the idea that people can gain romantic success solely through “effort” psychologically damages people.

Why? Despite what heebee might have implied about us when we were arguing against his “no women are willing to date ugly men” ramblings, we (and feminism in general) don’t support the idea of everyone deserving a partner or that you can somehow “earn” a partner if you just try hard enough.

Relationships are formed by the mutual interest and consent of two (or more) individuals. There isn’t someone out there who has been specifically labeled for your use, and there are definitely people out there who are unable to find partners due to all manner of reasons. And it’s shitty that society pushes the idea of (heterosexual) romantic relationships as being a requirement for all adults and as the most important relationship anyone can have. It’s shitty that men are socialized to depend solely on romantic relationships to fulfill all their needs for emotional support and affection. Our society has a dysfunctional view of how relationships should function.

All of these statements are basic feminism 101 sentiments. What kind of debate is there to have?

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

ty for that excellent reply, Catalpa!

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@kupo

“soothing your hurt feelings”

My feelings aren’t hurt. I’m more confused. I’m trying to make it clear that I’m ONLYdiscussing “a lid for every pot” and not his OTHER argument’s or heebee himself.

and conceding to you that we are wrong and awful for the things you inferred from our conversation with heebee.

Ok, I’m going to need a [Citation needed] for where that came from.

“What do you hope to gain from such a discussion? Feminism, especially intersectional feminism, already rejects it. We’re all in agreement. What’s to discuss?”

I was hoping to gain the same thing I gain from every other discussion on things that we all agree on. Some thoughtful thoughts? Or some interesting sources at the very least?

@Rhuu

I had thought about it and logged back in to try to edit out the last bit. Too late.

You’re right, I wasn’t clear, it was my mistake, not yours. And DBZ jokes are always the best. 🙂

Now I’m late anyways. Good thing I work for family.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
1 year ago

I don’t see the issue with saying that if your goal is to be partnered, and it’s not currently happening, you have to work at it. Putting in effort doesn’t guarantee or entitle you to a partner, of course. But getting out and being social, signing up for dating app accounts and reaching out to people, identifying what about you might be putting people off and working on changing it, etc will give you a better chance than sitting home alone.

Any goal you have, you’re more likely to have success if you try, even though success isn’t guaranteed. This seems obvious to me.

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

and conceding to you that we are wrong and awful for the things you inferred from our conversation with heebee.

Ok, I’m going to need a [Citation needed] for where that came from.

Ok, I mean you could scroll back up and re-read what you wrote knowing now how it came off, but instead you demand some extra labor. Here are your receipts.

But again, why the negative judgment that stopping is an unwillingness to make the effort? Why can’t stopping be a mental health break? Or something else?

why describe finding someone solely in terms of effort and a lack thereof when other factors are involved?

I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it?

Maybe I’m reading your statement wrong, but why imply that it’s laziness keeping all these men dateless?

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
1 year ago

I have some charge in the batteries for this, I can do a turn.

@Red R. Lion, hi, I’m’a freja. Can I call you Red?

Maybe I’m reading your statement wrong, but why imply that it’s laziness keeping all these men dateless?

We weren’t implying that men who have “given up” on dating are lazy, that was a defensive misfire on your part. We were saying nearly the opposite – that anyone who doesn’t want to date doesn’t have to put the effort into it if they don’t want to. Dating is not a requirement! Men and women who decide against it are just as valid as those who decide for it.

Seems like you read “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” and interpreted it as us telling him he’s being lazy. We aren’t. We’re knocking the misogynistic excuse out from under him. He doesn’t need an excuse to not date. He can just, y’know, not do it. He doesn’t have to throw us all under the bus in order to justify his decision.

That same misconception also seems to have had you read this whole “every pot has a lid” thing into it, too. We aren’t telling him “keep looking and you’ll eventually find someone,” because that’s wishful thinking. Some people don’t find a partner that works for them, that’s the roll of the dice. We’re telling him that he can’t justify his decision to not date on the idea that all women are too picky to date someone who isn’t a hottie-hotpants.

He has to justify it otherwise, and the justification “it’s not what I want to do” is absolutely fine. So is “I want to take a break from it.” Note that these valid justifications are self-referential – they point to himself, to his emotional state and mental health, to his goals. That’s a valid justification. All women are X is not.

Get it? I can sort of understand your confusion on it. That confusion is sort of sodden in misogyny itself, but, well. Welcome to the Patriarchy. We’re all swimming in it. I don’t blame you, and hope that this (admittedly terrible) description gives you a new perspective.

EDIT: Bonus points (10): All of the above was engendered from a single misconception. What was it, and what is the significance of having that misconception within the context of sexism in society?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

I was hoping to gain the same thing I gain from every other discussion on things that we all agree on. Some thoughtful thoughts? Or some interesting sources at the very least?

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

But sometimes trying to incite discussion on something that is a fundamental concept of the philosophical fabric of a community seems a bit… disingenuous.

Like if some random troll came here to talk about how women shouldn’t have the vote, gets banned, and then some other member came on afterwards to go “hey guys we should really talk about how women should have the right to vote”. Like… What kind of debate do you expect to happen? Women should have the vote. That’s all that really needs to be discussed on that topic. Expecting people to talk about it more gives off the impression that one either a) doesn’t agree with the wide consensus about the topic but doesn’t have the guts to say so outright or b) is trying to bait other people into saying something against the wide consensus and establish that those other people are bad people.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@Freja

“@Red R. Lion, hi, I’m’a freja. Can I call you Red?”

Call me whatever you like. 😋

“Seems like you read “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” and interpreted it as us telling him he’s being lazy.”

No, I agree with “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid.” Since I’m a. gay b. genderfluid and c. afab, I can write entire tomes about how “all women/vagina-havers are x” has negatively hurt my personal life. For the last time, I agree with you all.

And I didn’t interpet “You’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” as you telling him he’s being lazy; I interperted “It’s that you’ve decided that it’s too much work, and you’d rather put that energy into other things.” as telling him that he was lazy. As I said repeatedly in my first post, I didn’t find your/others original statements super clear.

We aren’t telling him “keep looking and you’ll eventually find someone,” because that’s wishful thinking. Some people don’t find a partner that works for them, that’s the roll of the dice.

Ok, but I didn’t find this clear in the first half of the thread.

@Catalpa

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

Yes, THIS. Besides, I don’t even have the spoons to be disingenuous right now. Sorry if I seem a little pissy.

@kupo

Ok, I mean you could scroll back up and re-read what you wrote knowing now how it came off, but instead you demand some extra labor. Here are your receipts.

Funny, but I don’t see an @kupo in any of those. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

And I still see no-where in those reciepts where I implied that this commentariat was, and I quote, “wrong and awful”. It’s almost as if I didn’t say it at all.

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

Funny, but I don’t see an @kupo in any of those. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

You quited me, specifically, and asked for citations.

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

And since edit isn’t working, apologies for the double post.

And I still see no-where in those reciepts where I implied that this commentariat was, and I quote, “wrong and awful”. It’s almost as if I didn’t say it at all.

So you’re allowed to infer things that freja did not say but I’m not allowed to infer things that you did not say. 🤔

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@kupo

“You quited me, specifically, and asked for citations.

Yes after you joined in of your own volation and made wild claims in an attempt to discredit me, yes I directly quoted you and asked for a [citation needed]. Because you first joined this discussion of your own will, you consented to the “labor” that it takes to have a discission. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

So you’re allowed to infer things that freja did not say but I’m not allowed to infer things that you did not say. 🤔

Because I didn’t infer anything but offered my interpertation of something that she DID say. I also conceded right at the beginning that I could be reading her statement wrong, and in no way attempted to make her look like an ass.

And to answer your question, no I DON’T get to infer entire statements that Freja didn’t come close to saying. And no, you DON’T get to infer statements that I didn’t say either.

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
1 year ago

in·fer
/inˈfər/
verb
verb: infer; 3rd person present: infers; past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred; gerund or present participle: inferring

deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
“from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing”
synonyms: deduce, conclude, conjecture, surmise, reason, interpret;

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

Apres vous.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
1 year ago

First off, ‘infer’ means

verb (used with object), in·ferred, in·fer·ring.

to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
to guess; speculate; surmise.

You are both inferring.

Red, I remind you that in this space, we very regularly deal with both people asking us to explain feminism 101 to them, blatant trolls who are mocked, and sneaky trolls who are Just Asking Questions.

The responses someone will get will depend on in which categories they fall. You are currently asking us to explain feminism 101, which takes effort.

Whoever answers you does so of their own volition, but *you still asked*, hoping someone would do that labour for you, rather than googling something. You wanted the back and forth conversation. That’s effort.

If someone replies, pointing this out… It seems pretty petty to go “You didn’t have to respond!”

This, however

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

comment image

Is very much not a good look.

But since we are all in agreement that heebee was wrong and that compulsory pairing off is bad, I guess we’re done with the discussion?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

Yes, THIS. Besides, I don’t even have the spoons to be disingenuous right now.

… Yeah, alright, just quote the portion of my reply that appears to support what you want (i.e. Other members of the commentariat spending time and energy to assure you that “relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism. I’m really not sure what kind of hidden complexities you expect to explore in that sentiment, or why you think it would be considered an “advanced concept”). Completely dismiss all the rest of my comment with a “no I’m not!”. And be incredibly condescending to kupo. Cool.

Yeah, I’m done here.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
1 year ago

Yeah, that’s where I thought this conversation was going to go . . .

But since we are all in agreement that heebee was wrong and that compulsory pairing off is bad, I guess we’re done with the discussion?

Let’s hope.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

“You are both inferring.”

Ok, so I’ll ask you the same thing I asked kupo. Where did I infer that the commentariat here is, and I directly quote, “wrong and awful” in general, to heebee, anywhere?

“You are currently asking us to explain feminism 101, which takes effort.

Whoever answers you does so of their own volition, but *you still asked*, hoping someone would do that labour for you, rather than googling something.

I googled “soulmate theory feminism” before I even posted and came up with literally nothing, so it’s hardly a feminism 101 topic.

I did google something. I even did it before I asked!

Is very much not a good look.

So is shitting on someone with less privilege than you have. I didn’t want to get into my own personal woes, but the “with effort you’ll have your ‘soulmate’ ” concept has had a direct toxic effect on my life as a gay person. I shouldn’t have to justify asking to discuss it just because of who originally brought it up.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
1 year ago

First rule of holes: stop digging.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

[Edit]Is it really so irrational to expect that if someone doesn’t want to have a discussion, that they won’t engage? And ironically in a thread about taking personal responsibility for choices?

@Catalpa

Well not to demand labor from you, but directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “ ‘relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”? I’m also not really sure what kind of hidden complexities I expect to explore in this sentiment, or why I think it would be considered an “advanced concept”.

Or, stop knocking down strawmen?

kupo
kupo
1 year ago

Where did I infer that the commentariat here is, and I directly quote, “wrong and awful” in general, to heebee, anywhere?

You did not. I did. And I was being a little extra snarky and over-the-top, but I did feel that you were getting at a point about us being awful. You kept harping on this idea of a lid for every pot and you did directly state that we were arguing that point.

I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it?

So no, you didn’t directly state that we were being awful and you may not have intended to imply it, but I did infer it from your arguments (because arguing there’s a lid for every pot is kinda awful — that’s my phrasing, not yours).

I apologize for overstating things and taking out how fed up I am with Just Asking Questions trolls on you.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

[Edit]Is it really irrational to expect that if someone doesn’t want to have a discussion, that they won’t engage? And ironically in a thread about taking personal responsibility for choices?

@Catalpa

Well not to demand labor from you, but directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “ ‘relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”? I’m also not really sure what kind of hidden complexities I expect to explore in this sentiment, or why I think it would be considered an “advanced concept”.

Or, stop knocking down strawmen?

Catalpa
Catalpa
1 year ago

directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner‘” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”?

Right here:

So, what about his point that the whole soulmate/”lid for every pot” thing is toxic and leads to resentment and entitlement, though?

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
1 year ago

Red, you’re being an ass. Stop.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

@kupo

I apologize for overstating things and taking out how fed up I am with Just Asking Questions trolls on you.

No problem kupo, apology accepted. I’m sorry as well, water under the bridge? 🙂

@Everyone

Sorry for getting so worked up myself, truth is, I have a bunch of shit going on as well. I’m going to take my own advice and go lie down.

Sorry for being such an ass.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

I know I drug this thread downhill fast, but just to clear the air;

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

It actually never dawned on me that “soulmate” could be considered compulsory. (To me it’s basically defined as “true love”, and therefore by definition is consentual). Of course, had I actually tried using some reading comprehension I would have realized that I was being told this by you and others over and over again.

In short: Holy fuck did I act the fool here. Thank you all for being as patient with me as you all were as I didn’t really deserve it.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
1 year ago

I know I drug this thread downhill fast, but just to clear the air;

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

It actually never dawned on me that “soulmate” could be considered compulsory. (To me it’s basically defined as “true love”, and therefore by definition is consentual). Of course, had I actually tried using some reading comprehension I would have realized that I was being told this by you and others over and over again.

In short: Holy fuck did I act the fool here. Thank you all for being as patient with me as you all were as I didn’t really deserve it.