By David Futrelle
The “involuntarily” celibate fellows who’ve branded themselves incels may not be getting any sex, but that doesn’t stop them from thinking, and theorizing, about sex, much in the way someone blind from birth might theorize about what it’s like to see.
Over on the Incels.co forums, the regulars recently found themselves in a debate on the apparently controversial (amongst incels) proposition “Does Female pleasure matter?”
The fellow asking the question, an Incels.co regular with more than 400 comments to his name, feels that the only correct answer is “no.”
“I’ve been thinking, objectively the purpose for sex is to reproduce,” Salutextm began.
Men essentially enjoy this since they need to climax for reproduction to happen in light of the fact that the nerves that make sex feel pleasurable are in the head of the Penis. So a male’s pleasure is truly essential and will happen more often than not.
Ok, so far so good. We need to reproduce to keep our species going, so evolution has evidently designed sex to be fun so we’ll do it.
But I couldn’t think of any natural reason for the female orgasm or female pleasure.
Wait, what? Putting aside the fact that women do tend to enjoy sex at least as much as men, rendering the entire debate moot, why wouldn’t it be evolutionarily important for women to enjoy sex just like men? After all, don’t they have to agree to sex for sex to occur?
Oh, wait, I think I know where he’s going here.
That is to say, women don’t need to experience any pleasure for reproduction to occur. They simply must be there and take the man’s seed.
That … only makes sense if you assume that evolution has designed men to be rapists and women to be rape victims.
Female pleasure is as of now, harder to accomplish than male due to placement of nerve endings (clitoris) and hormonal differences (testosterone)
Well, I’m no expert on hormones or nerve endings but my informal studies and, er, fieldwork, have suggested to me that female sexual pleasure isn’t some weird unattainable thing seen rarely in nature, like the snow leopard or a Trump supporter who isn’t a racist.
So for what reason do people feel like its the man’s fault for a woman not getting off when their pleasure isn’t to be prioritized to begin with? Naturally, their pleasure doesn’t even matter. Or at least I couldn’t find any reason as to why it would
And with that attitude, you’re probably never going to see female sexual pleasure in the wild.
In another thread, Salutextm cited the results of a weird and tiny study of literally only 15 college couples — which found levels of the so-called “love hormone” oxytocin decreasing in the women after kissing — as proof that women really don’t enjoy this rather common sexual activity that women, on average, definitely do enjoy, in many cases, like, a lot.
“Do women subject themselves to things they don’t want to do for some ulterior motive?” he asked, baffled.
Why else would women engage with men if they do not find most men physically sexually attractive … or barely receive any physical sexual pleasure in most acts involving their man?
Not all the commenters on Incels.co agreed with Salutextm’s hypotheses.
“All a Woman wants is to be fucked hard by Chad and then ignored,” declared IAmJAcksBrokenHeart.
A commenter called Huntedbyhate went even further, suggesting that the fact that women do feel sexual pleasure was really the heart of the problem. His proposed “solution” to this alleged problem was rather gruesome.
“I wish that all females had their clits cut off so they couldn’t experience pleasure,” he wrote. “More foids for us and fewer for Chad.”
It’s not altogether clear why he thinks the “foids” — that is, women — who’ve had their genitals forcibly mutilated would flock to the men who had actually called for this horrific practice. But that’s incel logic for you.
Despite these critics, a significant portion of the commenters seemed to agree that female pleasure doesn’t matter, or at the very least it shouldn’t.
“Their pleasure doesn’t matter,” asserted Danzai. “Foids were made to make babies, not enjoy themselves in it.”
“Why would the pleasure of a toilet matter?” added Insomniac.
Once again, the regulars on Incels.co have made it clear why the women who are refusing to have sex with them — which would be all women, everywhere, on planet earth — are making the right decision.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Obviously, if you take it literally.
The underlying logic is that these guys are straight up admitting they can’t make the cut and are pining away for the “good old days” when women were more dependent on men. Keep in mind, just about every dude on an incel board buys the logic of Alpha Fucks/Beta Bux. The problem (for them) is that Beta Bux are no longer so required. It’s really just more Chad worship.
Lovely shaming language, this.
@John
Oh my gods. Oh my gods. What the fuck is wrong with you, dude. How can you talk about this with such a level of clinical detachment.
And fuck “the point”, that is the purest most simplistic bullshit. We are human beings with complex motivations, including around sex, which BTW your definition of is narrower and more ignorant than I can properly explain to you.
Just… please go and read some Laurie Penny or something. Jesus.
You have a lot to be ashamed of, asshat.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiopYyC0vPhAhUHTt8KHWvHBvIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FTrollXChromosomes%2Fcomments%2Fb0l88u%2Fmy_thought_everytime_someone_shows_up_on_trollx%2F&psig=AOvVaw1g2COebbGTj-dV4XON4Bll&ust=1556570197070905
Only if you remove the brain in addition to the clitoris.
Well, yes.
But it doesn’t shame people for who they are and can’t (or shouldn’t have to) change, like shaming people for the color of their skin or hair or eyes, or the gender of people to whom they’re attracted or whether their breasts are big or small or whether or not their height is too tall or too short or whether they unconsciously default to using the right hand or the left when writing or using scissors.
it doesn’t shame people for qualities that are inherent in the human condition so much so that more than 80% of people (and sometimes many more) are going to experience it. That would be Christian shaming language for, get this, having doubts which comes in for shame language, or being attracted to someone you’re not married to, which is something experienced by easily more than 90% of the population.
It doesn’t shame people for minority preferences, desires, or behaviors that nonetheless don’t affect anyone else and thus aren’t anyone else’s business like being into comic books or my little pony or trilobites.
The statement shames people, to the extent that it shames anyone, only for considering sex transactionally and without empathy.
Would you be opposed to a statement like,
If not, then you’ll have to explain exactly why this particular shaming – the shaming of people who don’t give a fuck about whether or not their sexual partners experience pleasure – is a bad use of shaming.
As for the “logic” discussion, you now say:
The underlying logic? I think you have it wrong.
The underlying logic wasn’t, “If I had a lot of money and Jane over there had none, Jane would fuck me.”
The underlying logic was, “If sex was about procreation only and Jane’s pleasure didn’t matter, Jane would fuck me.”
But if sex for women was solely and completely about obtaining quality baby batter from anyone with testes, wouldn’t they be even more likely to choose from a very limited pool of sperm producers? And why would they have sex at all?
Gee, look at that. It’s always and only about procreation and yet still that doesn’t help the repulsive sad sacks at all.
Seriously. Read the initial statement again. No mention of “if only I was rich”. The entire argument was about removing pleasure and making the ENTIRE equation about procreation – not money, not dependence, not vegan donuts. Procreation.
You’re desperately flailing around trying to come up with an interpretation that makes your original statement correct, or at least reasonable. Just let it go. You made a mistake. The “logic” of this incel argument is, yes, illogical. There is no special underlying meaning that makes these particular words by these particular guys totally rational.
All you have to do is admit that a woman was right about something and we can all move on.
Where do you get 100,000,000? At most, 61 million people voted for Trump. Of his base, about 20% openly express approval for whote nationalism. Those are just the people who are willing to come right out and own up to bigotry for pollsters. There’s another large chunk who may not be openly racist, but they respond to dog whistles and think things were better in the old days when everybody knew their place and women and brown people’s concerns didn’t matter. That includes the “economically anxious”, preppers and militia types, libertarians, and 4chan nihilist edgelords. Racism doesn’t always carry a tiki torch and wear a KKK hood. In fact, it thrives precisely because people like you expect it to assume a certain brazen form and refuse to acknowledge the many subtle, insidious ways in which racial inequality is perpetuated.
Trump doesn’t need to have the support of a majority of Americans, thanks to the Electoral College and gerrymandering.
Stop being disingenuous. Read up on Umberto Ecco’s fourteen points. Compare with Trump’s tweets attacking the press, his contempt for the weak, his insistence on blind, unquestioning loyalty, his comparison of immigrants, Muslims, and Jews to vermin and disease. Trump meets every single criteria for ur-fascism and the early stages of genocide. Treat him as a joke at your own peril.
As for elections, plenty of authoritarian regimes have “elections”. What makes you think Trump won’t try to cancel the 2020 elections, especially if he faces the prospect of prison if he loses?
@John
Why are you here? Did you think “hey you guys I’m clearly an MRA asshole but guess what I ALSO don’t like incels” was going to win you any sympathy from us? I really don’t get this kind of troll at all. You’re not exactly flying under the radar on a feminist blog when you open with “gee, genital mutilation makes perfect sense if you really think about it!”
I am not defending incel logic! I am just trying to figure out what makes them tick.
100%.
I am not defending incel logic! I mean, yeah, of course you’re right about that.
I’d agree that both men and women who don’t care about their partner’s pleasure deserve to be shamed. I will also admit that shaming is a touchy subject with me, because I’m a single dude who nonetheless gets laid. Is it a legitimate lifestyle choice, or am I some worthless manchild because I am uninterested in committing to anyone any time soon? Do you see how the assumption that I don’t actually care about the women I’m with ties into that?
I have no problem doing this. I just don’t know that we’re even talking about the same thing, for one to be right, and the other wrong. What I have been exploring in this thread is the idea that some incel would want to perform cliteradectomies on women exactly because they can’t compete with Chad. I mean, it’s right there in the quote, “more for us and less for Chad.”
If you want to attack my point of view, let me lay it out explicitly: “Incels deny the utility of female sexual pleasure exactly because incels are incapable of sexually pleasuring a woman.” That’s my position.
I got kicked out of the manosphere for being too liberal! More seriously, the echo chamber got old, and I was in denial about the racism (to be fair, that part has gotten much worse recently). And yeah, the sexism bugged me as well. Men aren’t remotely as rational as they pretend to be. Women are far more capable than they’re made out to be.
I guess I’ll have to be more blunt and make distinctions between what I believe versus deconstructing things I read in the manosphere. If I didn’t have feminist sympathies, I wouldn’t be here at all.
I do think I have some insight and perspective that I’m trying to share. Whether it’s even remotely welcome here is a different matter.
Ah, yes, the Valuable Male Perspective, which none of us have ever heard before. It’s so generous of you to come and share it with us! Please give us more of your wisdom. I am trembling in anticipation.
You know, it is possible to have casual sex without treating your partners as objects and conquests.
In fact, men, you would all get laid more if you stopped dehumanizing the women who have consensual sex with you! Shocking concept, I know.
…you are perfectly correct . ~1/3 of the US population are white supremacists, and white supremacists definitionally lack morals. This has basically always been the case, though the percentage has ranged fair higher in the past.
@John
Ok, fair enough. I wouldn’t say that attempting to understand the Manosphere isn’t at all worthwhile. Just keep in mind that some of these people have advocated for our deaths and some have committed violent hate crimes including murder and domestic terrorism. Considering the danger they pose to many of us, it’s not surprising that many won’t care that much about what’s going on in their heads or “deconstructing” the reasoning behind their hatred.
It’s a legitimate lifestyle choice. It also has nothing to do with how you treat your sexual partners. The assumption was based on your own reasoning for why your partner’s pleasure is important, not whether you want to be in a committed relationship.
I think the important takeaway here is that our friend “I’ve never hit a woman but I’ve been pretty fucking tempted in the past” John totally fucks, y’all. Like, he gets laid, like, all the time.
More of a view from the inside, from someone who didn’t do all the reading with complete derision perspective……but not an incel perspective, because…..
I actually know this.
Notice the frustration inherent in your argument. By saying we could get laid more if we stopped dehumanizing women, you’re implying that women are not having as much sex as they would like. This is known to some. Incels and mgtows bitching about the “cock carousel” are blind to it, of course.
Well said, and will do.
The view from the inside is something we never get either! No-one has ever come in here to explain any of this before. (And we couldn’t deduce any of this for ourselves.) Please, wise one, instruct us further.
I’m here for the back & forth, but do continue with the derision.
I think they call it a “shit test” being used to find out if my “frame” is built from bricks or soy.
@John
Back to the anti-soy nonsense? I guess you can take the douche out of the manosphere, but you can’t take the manosphere out of the douche.
I don’t know if you’re accusing me of being emotional or horny. Either way, not terribly original, bro.
You know it, yet you cannot stop yourself talking about women and sex in transactional terms. I’m guessing a lot of sexist men know that they’d have more satisfying sexual and/or romantic relationships with women if they’d stop being sexist.
And yet.
It’s very common for members of dominant groups to prioritize preserving that dominant status over individual well being. Perhaps you should spend more time examining yourself and your mindset and less time trying to ‘splain the manosphere to us.
No, I’m totally sincere – and you’re totally believable.
LOL
It’s funny that you take soy seriously.
@John
I’m not the one taking this soy nonsense seriously. And if you mean literally, words mean things, even dogwhistles. When you talk about soy it’s shorthand for feminized men, which is ridiculously sexist and is also pushing a falsehood about how soy interacts with the human endocrine system.
That, or you’re reading my words in a biased fashion. I mean…”make her feel good and not dehumanized” doesn’t seem particularly transactional, especially if I do it because I’m a good man, not just to get laid.