By David Futrelle
Western incels often fantasize about solving their no-one-wants-to-have-sex-with-them problem by moving to Southeast Asia where, they assume, they’ll have their pick of attractive, extremely impoverished young women ripe for sexual exploitation.
Incels tend to put it a little less delicately. “It seems that, if you’re white,” one prolific Incels.co commenter called RegisterUserName wrote recently, “the only way you can ascend is through going to Asia and fucking some noodlewhore who’s desperate for a green card … .”
But carrying out this plan would involve moving to, or at the very least visiting, a country far from home, and competing with other Westerners who might be more handsome or at least less objectionable as a person than you, and so for most incels this fantasy remains just that.
But RegisterUserName has some up with some ideas as to how he and his incel colleagues can find similarly poor and/or vulnerable women out there without even leaving their hometowns.
“[W]hen you can’t get what you want with mainstream methods,” he wrote in a recent post, “you have to think outside the box to solutions that have a greater chance of working.”
His suggestions?
Join a 12-step group like “Alcoholics Anonymous or one of those circle meetings to find someone in a rough patch in life.”
Get yourself admitted to a mental hospital so you could “find some crazy bird.”
Start a cult. This might be a bit tricky, as RegisterUserName notes, because you’d “have to be able to be very charismatic and preferably not a turbomanlet.” But if you can pull it off, he continues, you could fill the cult with “girls [who] could be anywhere from 16 (depending on age of consent; obviously don’t break the law) to around 25 or so)” and find yourself your very own Squeaky Fromme.
Join a cult. If actually starting a cult would be too much work, you can always try
Cultmaxxing by leeching on someone else’s cult and finding [a] wife, but be careful that a fellow incel hasn’t made it into a sex cult where he fucks your wife
Exploit homeless girls. RegisterUserName has a somewhat elaborate fantasy of “saving” some homeless teenager, who can’t help but feel so grateful that she “repays” you, her savior, with sex
and then they fall in love with you or something … you gotta have your own house and stuff, preferably be able to fulfill a father like role because she probably had circumstances which led to her never having anyone to be a father … . I think I like this one the most because … you’re actually helping someone so it’s the most morally acceptable … .
Sexual exploitation isn’t “helping,” dude.
Only one of RegisterUserName’s suggestions doesn’t involve exploiting a desperately poor or otherwise vulnerable women. But it does require you commit a violent assault. Yes, we’re talking about the time-honored mating strategy of beating up some cute girl’s boyfriend.
Fight girls’ boyfriends and try to hit on them after. You see all those stories man you never know. (Works best if you’re young, tall, good fighting success. You can snag teenage girls depending on laws in your area so from around 16-25 where they might just get turned on by it and are drunk and are angry at their boyfriends, but it probably won’t be a long term thing ever because, I mean, come on, it’s the type of girl to leave her boyfriend for an ugly subhuman because he got beat up)
As it turns out, RegisterUderName isn’t the only one with fantasies of explaoiting vulnderable girls and women. One of the other commenters, apparently writing from Saudi Arabia, explained that he had
considered … hiring a live in maid and hope she will fuck me to keep her job but that’s nearly impossible to do in Saudi Arabia or dealing drugs and hope one of the tweakers will suck my dick for some drugs but I don’t know anyone to buy drugs from and selling drugs has death penalty here and I’m not ready to die yet.
You know, fellas, maybe if you weren’t the sort of guys who spend your days fantasizing about ruthlessly exploiting desperate women for sex you might be able to get a date with an actual willing woman.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
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!
@ariblester
Our instincts are designed to help us survive and reproduce. As long as they continue to do so they are both hard wired and rational.
No contradiction.
That’s an unnecessary anthromorphization of the process of natural selection. I’m sorry, but evolution has no reason guiding it. We may ascribe reasons post hoc to the observed results, but that’s motivated reasoning.
How exactly do you aim to make sure all single men are “good providers and all-round decent people” if you still assume that subgroups of men like “chads” still exist? Furthermore, how does being an “all-round decent [person]” square with the apparently “rational” “desire” by “most women” for men to have a “capacity for violence”?
It all sounds like a collection of unwarranted generalizations and vigorous handwaving away of any inconsistencies, TBH.
BTW, any term I put in quotes is one that needs to be more clearly defined, or an unstated premise that needs to be properly justified.
@ariblester
You make a whole lot of assumptions even when I say the opposite to what you assume.
How can I ‘ensure’ men are good providers and all round good guys? The question is absurd. For 40 years the left has been trying to reengineer human nature without success. I say work with what we have.
Under monogamy women tend to favour good providers and kind men over chads. We can therefore expect more kindness from men and less pick up artistry. Some men will be unable or unwilling to provide and they will be eliminated from the gene pool.
These men will be few in number and will diminish over time.
@ariblester
You make a good point that reminds me of something that is not understood on the left. It is quite possible to be a good and kind man and still be capable of killing anyone who hurts his wife and child. In fact one cannot be a good man without this ability- or what is the use of him?
Goodness is not weakness. Male feminists generally end up being weak backstabbers because they do not understand the difference.
NB. I said ‘most’ not ‘all’.
That makes no sense. It does not follow that men who are not good providers will not be married and will not reproduce.
Quite the opposite, in fact, in a system where strong-form enforced monogamy (i.e. all men must marry a woman, and vice versa, and divorce is forbidden) is the rule.
If you suppose a weak-form enforced monogamy (i.e. society exerts pressure on people to stay monogamous), then isn’t that the model upon which ‘traditional Western society’ has been based for so long? Why did it not work in eliminating “chads”?
Besides which, this ‘traditional Western’ model was exclusively cis-heteronormative, and thus fails to capture the fullness of reality.
With the exception of some of the details, I actually dated a guy who went on to do this.
I used to see him around at lefty political events. He and a friend of mine had dated years earlier. He owned a one-person business and had an office in a San Francisco suburb. We dated very briefly — which is to say, he dumped me unceremoniously because he needed his “space.” A few months later my friend informed me that this man was having a “relationship” with a homeless woman who he allowed to sleep in his office.
Morally acceptable? My friend and I were aghast that a guy we had dated would sink so low.
See, that’s the unclear definitions that I’m talking about. We obviously have very different definitions of what makes a person “good”.
Besides which, if backstabbing is a valid survival strategy that is evolutionary conserved, then wouldn’t you have to accept it as “rational” and thus “good”? Can’t have it both ways.
@Richard
Yeah, I just hate myself after I do this.
@Richard
I learned in college that humans have only two instincts (that is, a behavior that we’re born with): (1) an ability to suckle, and (2) a fear of falling.
@Richard:
I think your messages are a good example of what the right doesn’t understand.
The right doesn’t understand that subjugated people have a mind or a will of their own. They say that the subjugation is natural and it’s what they really want.
A woman wants a man who protects her: no, because that makes her dependent on the man. How many women have been killed by their husbands this year?
It’s like saying:
“Blacks need whites to civilize them.”
“Slaves need a lord to feed them and protect them.”
“People need a strong leader who governs them with ‘common sense’.”
“The land needs an entrepreneur to turn it into profit.”
How strange that their “instincts” always benefit me.
Lol someone is mad that sometimes boyfriend punch the dude that grope their girlfriends ass in the middle of a crowd.
@Kat
Why do we have the second one do you know? I mean falling hurts yes, but why such a fear of it? then we as humans invited an activities where you can fall out of air planes and jump of bridges without getting hurt. We make roller coasters and other rides that make it feel like falling. I know that’s a whole lot of shit to unpack about why we fear it and then some still love the rush of it.
Re: Picking up ‘Crazy Chicks’ in a mental hospital.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
May every step you take from now on land on a lego.
When I actually make myself read the complete article instead of just hiding in the comments because my morbid curiosity gets to me, I can only think of one thing. I will be able to legally drink in two days. And for a moment I might be able to forget what horrible people walk this earth while I drunkenly cuddled my old kitty after a night of dancing. Possibly even my young kitty, even though she isn’t much of a cuddler.
— James Tiptree, Jr. Houston, Houston, Do You Read?
Re: attacking someone’s boyfriend as a pick-up move
I thought in incel mythology “Chad” is the guy who walks up to you and your girlfriend at the beach, kicks some sand in your face and walks away with your girlfriend, who’s duly impressed that someone stronger and more handsome than you showed up. Like, being able to do that is pretty much the definition of Chad.
Incel identity seems to be defined as pretty much the opposite of Chad. Nominally the kind of guy who couldn’t even get a girl for a beach date, incels seem to think that fundamentally their problem is not being Chad.
Re: cult leadership for fun & profit
In modern world, cults seem to be the most notable real life manifestation of the alleged dynamic where one man at the top of the social pecking order hoards sexual access to all women. Again, I don’t see how anyone thinks incels could succeed in this game.
@Lainy : because fall hurt badly humans overall. We’re too big to fall graciously, even if not quite big enough that a fall is ensured death.
While it sometime doesn’t appear so, humans have an instinctive craving for justice and to help each other. It’s just that, like fear of falling, people can suppress it well enough. Especially when they are comfortable.
@ arilbester
I see the confusion. Neither myself not JP are advocating for some kind of random state shotgun wedding putting people together for no reason.
I would like to se a return to the days when a man would have to work hard and develop himself in order to provide for his family rather than scattering his bastards across the nation. If sex outside of marriage could be prevented then women would no longer say ‘where have all the good men gone.’
Being a good man would pay once again. I cannot see why any woman would object to this. A return to romance!!!
Sex outside of marriage would have to shamed very harshly. Hopefully criminal sanctions would not be needed.
@uclalegont
Whatever makes you conflate love with oppression? Even under feminism women read romance novels and will do so until they are classed as hate speech. I am only half joking.
You fail to understand that it is women who invent the rules of romance and women that enforce them (or there would be no incels).
I do not like playing the role that is allotted to me. I feel more relaxed and more myself among men and I wish I could drop the persona as all men probably do.
@kat
Try not breathing for a bit. In five minutes you will either discover that your instinct to breathe is stronger than your university professors would have you believe- or you will be unconscious.
How many other lies have they told you?
Aren’t you the hostile rightwinger.
Lies? Oh no! I wasted my money on college!
If the Internet can be believed, there’s a great deal of difference of opinion these days on what is a human instinct, what is a human reflex, and so on. I’m not up on the issues. But you are most assuredly in over your head with your casual assertions about human instincts.
No, it’s clear you can’t see why a woman would object to babies being called bastards. Or why a woman would object to shaming — or criminalizing — sex outside marriage.
Keep your so-called romance, along with your extra exclamation points.
@Lainy
Dunno. Good question.
That just raises even more questions!
I’m trying to pull your ideas into a coherent whole here, and this is what I have so far:
A) A “good man” is one who fulfills his (societal? biological?) usefulness by
i) being able to provide for his wife and children, and
ii) having the capacity to fight and kill to protect his wife and children
B) All men should work towards being “good men” and fulfilling their usefulness
C) “Most women” judge by “instinct” the desirability of men by their ability to fulfil A)ii)
D) “The rules of romance” are constructed by (all?) women, (based in part or in whole on C)?)
E) Incels are caused by men being frustrated from failing (from lack of effort? from intrinsic lack of ability?) to live up to “the rules of romance”, and therefore being denied access to sex by women
F) “Male feminists” are “weak” and “backstabbers” because they are (unwilling? unable?) to live up to A)ii) (, among other things?)
G) “The left” is trying to fight against human nature by attempting to “reprogram” people (how?)
H) (Society? Women?) currently reward men for “scattering their bastards across the nation” (how? I have a sinking feeling that the explanation will be “AFBB”.)
I) Monogamy will cause (all?) women to prefer “good men” over “chads” (how and why?)
J) “Chadism” is genetically heritable, so the fewer “chads” manage to have sex with women, the fewer “chads” there will be in the population (I don’t think that is how that works.)
Looking over the entire thing, I can only state that it has an extremely mechanistic “if this, then that” view of human relationships (more so for women than for men), is heteronormative in the extreme, leans heavily on evo-psych to support its most fundamental claims, presupposes that the nuclear family is the building block of civilization, with the man as the sole provider and protector, and otherwise completely excludes the influence of society and socialization except in a generally negative fashion (as being contrary to “human nature”).
@Richard:
Firstly, thanks for understanding my horribly written post. I hope I’ll express myself better now.
The way I see it, love is a feeling that someone is great and enjoying their company. Something like that. You seem to imply that “love” means “romance” means the man protects the woman. This puts the man in control and gives him power over the woman. So, probably, I’m conflating your idea of love with oppression.
Where? How?
There are also women who can’t get sex.
Drop it then. What’s wrong about appearing like yourself?