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!
Richard is boring and being dealt with quite handily, so can be ignored.
Regarding the idea of attending AA meetings to pick up rock bottom chicks (not the phrase used here, but one I have heard used) – I’d strongly advise any incels reading not to try. It does not end well. For them, anyways.
@Richard
You cannot return to a time, that never was. You might as well suggest we all throw off our clothes and go back to eden or crawl into the womb.
BREATHING IS NOT AN INSTINCT YOU UNEDUCATED GIT! It’s a vegetative function of the medulla oblongata just like body temperature and sweating.
Way less than you or your Lobstergod. I mean, I use those “lies” to safe people’s lives.
You can’t even give them the advice to do something social because they’re going to turn it into this…
Thank you. This is a fantastic summery and far more right than wrong. I will do my very best to answer it in the same fair minded way!
A. Correct. Evolution did not end with civilisation and we still wish to survive and reproduce as much as we ever did. This BTW is why I accept the ways in which women select partners. I owe this strategy for my existence! Feminists often assume pointing out human behaviours is to condemn it. Not so! You will find the right is very accepting of human nature as it is.
It is objectively true that a man who cannot (or will not) protect and support his family is doing a bad job of fatherhood.
B. Yes. We should strive for truth and goodness.
C. We can see this played out on this blog. It is basically hunting for ‘losers’ who are not attractive to women and heaping shame upon their heads. Such men are assumed to be both sexually inadequate and bad in a fight. If a man expresses pain then he is assumed to be a danger to women. In fact he is a larger danger to himself.
D. The rules of romance are set by all women who wish to play the game. It is they who decide who is the Alpha and the Beta by the choices they make. They have the right to do this but should take responsibility for their choices.
E. Correct. A man who simply does not wish to make the effort is a MGTOW but there is much overlap between the groups. I am a MGTOW.
F. Not quite. Many male feminists would make fine human beings except that they have bought the lie that a weak man is a good man. They eliminate good masculine qualities and instead wage covert wars against anyone better than themselves. It is weak men, not strong men who hurt women.
G. The left approach everything from the standpoint of how people ‘should’ think and feel. We see it here very much. They think if everyone had the correct attitudes and opinions the world would be a better place. In fact they merely crush the human spirit.
H. Yes. AFBB- under a welfare state. Without it they would have to settle with Nigel from accounts who at least has a good wage.
I. Correct. When faced with a lifetime with one man the bad boy loses much of his appeal.
J. ‘Chadism’ Is indeed heritable. How could it not be?
Yes it is heteronormative as it concerns itself with families and childcare. Sex outside of reproduction is a hobby. Nothing more.
The nuclear family has been the building block of all pre existing civilisations. Maybe there is another way- but it is yet to be found.
I find socialisation arguments to be a cop out. It allows us to ignore the evidence before our eyes and to imagine a changed human being (new Soviet Man?) if only people were conditioned by some authoritarian but benign state authority. This has not worked out well in the past.
@uclaegont
It used to be possible for men to spend much of the day apart from women and thus drop pretence. We have yet to discover a way to have women in the workforce without imposing the same social restrictions on men there as exist elsewhere. Maybe segregation at work would be the answer. I have heard women say they are feel the same sort of thing and I support spaces for women as well.
The problem comes when women apply romantic strategies in a work environment. An undesirable man in a social environment (incel) will be excluded and made unwelcome. Eventually he will leave. At work he will find it impossible to do his job as he will be denied information or resources. The result is lost productivity as well as broken lives.
How about all the women who aren’t straight?
@catalpa
Why would a lesbian want to marry a man at all?
Well, that’s refreshing; someone who actually owns their biases.
Not quite. The blog’s mockery is not of the sexual prowess of incels (that would be ableist) not of their physical strength (also ableist).
It is mocking the mindset that these men have that women are objects to be gamed, possessed or destroyed, because they will not provide access to sex. It is mocking the mindset that all men and all women “should” behave in a single manner.
It is not mocking pain; it is bringing to light the fact that this pain is self-inflicted, by a sense of entitlement that is unleavened by even the barest shred of introspection.
And they are dangerous, to themselves and to others. The only difference is that they can choose to stop hurting themselves; others cannot choose to not be hurt by them.
The only thing we ask is that every person be treated as a person. Is that soul-crushing? Why? When you dehumanize a group, when you point to some imagined distinction as a reason to treat them as less than equal, when you continue to uphold social structures that only serve to keep people down, we will have words.
That’s a very, very dim view to take of sex.
Absolutely not! There are plenty of examples of matriarchal or matrilineal societies in antiquity. The Spartans raised their children communally, as did the kibbutzim in Israel.
@Richard
A lesbian would not want to marry a man, and the system which you are proposing would force/coerce women into marriage with men.
You propose removing women from the workforce, thereby depriving them of their ability to support themselves, and for lesbian partners to support one another.
You propose outlawing sex outside of marriage, and you state that sex is only useful in the procreative fashion, therefore it follows that this system would not allow for same-sex marriage, as same sex marriage would not be ‘useful’ to society. Ergo, homosexual sex will be outlawed.
Therefore, you are proposing that lesbian and asexual women be coerced/forced into marriage with men. So romantic! Can’t see why anyone would object to that.
@Richard
Belated, but I’m angry.
a) No, I don’t want a man to protect me. I’m forced to rely on the protection of men because you fuckers control most of my society. It’s less like having a big protective mastiff than like being someone’s Pomeranian, and you can damn well bet I resent it.
b) Humans have five basic responses to threats, not three: fight, flight, freeze, faint, and fawn. Many abuse survivors are intimately familiar with that fifth one, and almost all women are abuse survivors on some level. Have you considered that some women might accommodate male bullies because they’re fucking terrified for themselves, and are frantically trying to deescalate their abuser’s behavior?
And mind, I’m not going to downplay the white female purity/white male protectionism dynamic, and how dangerous that can be for people who aren’t white and/or don’t fit in that gender binary. But absolutely fuck you for thinking that women are hardwired to want to be treated like precious little pets. We want our own agency, and it is not our fault that society and men like you work to systematically deny it.
This is what I am talking about when I speak of people treating women as objects to be gamed!
Why on earth would you assume that women are applying romantic strategies to work?
Is there really no other interactional template that you could apply to these situations other than “women are looking for the Alpha, and I choose not to engage in their games, therefore I am equivalent to an incel”?
Social interactions go both ways; if you present yourself as wanting to be anywhere else but in front of a woman that you’re working with, guess what, they’re not going to want to prolong that interaction.
There’s a tiny bit of wiggle room in his argument; women would technically be allowed to work in separate but equal work environments; he didn’t think that (procreative?) sex outside of marriage should be criminalized, only made very socially undesirable by the removal of the welfare state and thereby benefits for unwed mothers; and members of the LGBT community, rather than being forced into heteronormative marriages, would be allowed to live solitary sexless existences, just like MGTOW (though that would actually make a large portion of LGBT individuals literally involuntarily celibate).
Not that it’s much different in practice from what you outlined ?
@Lainy
It is a useful thing for an infant to be fearful of, if they are expected to spend their early days clinging to their mother who is clinging to the upper branches of a tree. Probably related to some other primitive human reflexes like the Moro reflex (“startled baby”) and grasping reflex, which also are more common in furry and tree-climbing species that carry their young, than bald or ground-dwelling ones.
@Richard
Let’s go through your responses one by one:
A. No feminist I know believes that all human behaviors are wrong. We condemn actions like rape and murder because these behaviors are harmful to individuals and society. Regarding the right being tolerant of human nature, the right doesn’t seem very tolerant to anyone whose nature differs from what they expect (i.e. LGBTQIPAN+ people). Where the tolerance of their nature?
B. As others have pointed out already, we seem to have very different definitions of a good man. I think a good man is a man who respects others and is capable of empathy. These are the kinds of men that I want to be friends with, that I want to date. I am not interested in a breadwinner, but in a man or woman with good character.
C. We don’t mock incels because of their lack of sex. Plenty of people don’t have sex for a variety of reasons. We mock them because of the aggrieved entitlement and misogyny that they have, and the bullshit theories they come up with.
D. What rules of romance? I don’t think there’s an official set. If you mean that women can decide who they want to have relationships with, that’s true but so can men.
E. You’re an MGTOW? That explains a lot. Why do you care so much, though, if you’re going your own way?
F. You have created a binary of weak vs strong, with no clear way of telling what’s what. Most of the male feminists I know are fully respectable and normal people. Not weak. In fact, I knew one who was an amateur heavyweight boxer, and he was definitely not weak.
G. How exactly has the left crushed the spirit? I’ve been a Democrat my whole life and somehow I’m not crushed yet.
H. If alpha fucks and beta bucks, how come paternity fraud occurs in less than 1% of cases?
I. As far as I can tell, most women aren’t fans of the bad boy idea in the first place. So it does not have appeal for a lifetime.
J. You seem to think there is just one gene for your so-called Chadism, but it is well-established that there would be many. So it would be heritable, but isn’t really one unified heritable trait and is much more complicated than that. Plus, what about women carrying chad genes? Or recessive chad genes?
Also, if non-procreative sex is a hobby to you, you’ll probably be surprised to learn it’s an ancient and proud one, seeing as most animals seem to do this, as do humans in literally every society.
@Richard:
?
Sure, it is… so long as one accepts “human nature” as being one with your fuck-you-got-mine/ devil-take-the-hindmost philosophy. Open a window on your way out, the stench of Mordor you’ve brought in with you is sickening.
I see Richard once again is basing his ideas of science and now history completely on his own feelings.
Richard,
If the the behaviors you want are “hard wired” then we’d all just do them. There wouldn’t have to be laws, norms, pearl clutching think pieces etc. designed to enforce monogamy.
Also, the past did not work like you think it did. Genes do not work like you think they do.
@ariblester
Actually gay people would have a great time (as they do at the moment if they were honest). There is no need to regulate their sexuality as no children result. The purpose of ‘patriarchy’ is to ensure that all children have parents to love them. It is not that homosexuals are prohibited, it is that they are not regulated at all.
@Richard
It’s nothing to do with “romantic strategies”. If by “undesirable man in a social environment” you mean “unpleasant a***hole towards women” (which basically seems to be the predominant reason why Incels can’t get laid) it is not entirely surprising that women won’t want to work with him.
If you can’t interact socially with someone in a normal, sensible fashion they will neither sleep with you, nor work with you nor want to associate with you at all. Don’t delude yourself that it’s because you are not a “chad” or “alpha” or any BS like that: it’s because you make it pretty obvious you’re a total d*ck.
@TheKND
I understand your desire to be independent. Presumably this also involves childlessness?
The point of all this is not to force women into dependency- it is to ensure children are supported and women are not abandoned. We live in such an upside down world that some very bad people have convinced us that this is a bad thing.
@Richard
I can’t tell what you understand less: patriarchy or gay people. All the supporters of patriarchy that I can think of are virulently homophobic, and the majority of gay people I know do not support patriarchy. So if the right is so great for gay people in your opinion, why does the Republican Party continue to oppose LGBTQIPAN+ rights? Why is it that red states have more anti-LGBTQIPAN+ hate crimes?
I don’t think that is what patriarchy does, or was intended to do. Patriarchy exists to suppress women and keep white cishet men in power.
Take that up with your fellow conservatives. The political position that claims to not like regulation seems to feel very strongly about regulating LGBTQIPAN+ people.
@Richard
Who are these very bad people? I’m curious now.
@weirwood
Our ego tells us that we stand above nature and our own nature like a colossus. Reality says otherwise. Look at this blog, which on the one hand claims to oppose traditional gender roles but in fact enforces them. Men who express pain (yes we do feel it too) are mocked and told they hate women- yet it is true of both genders that much of the pain that comes into our lives is from those we love most. Women can vent here and other places- but men must remain stoic.
We cannot escape our nature. All we can do is recognise it and add in kindness when we can.
Whenever conservatives talk about women needing men to protect us, they neglect to mention that it’s protecting us from other men
Whether or not an individual woman looks for protectiveness in a partner, and that varies because – gasp! – women aren’t a monolith, it’s not an argument that women should be restricted for our own good. It’s an argument that men should be restricted. Kept indoors after dark. Discouraged from drinking. Not allowed to run governments or businesses. If it’s men’s nature to be violent against both women, and other men, then patriarchy is the least workable type of social structure.
Of course, being the evil spirit crushing lefty that I am, I don’t think men are inherently violent and can be better than Richard thinks they can.
Richard,
If we can not escape our nature, and our nature is to organize society like a 1950s sitcom, then we wouldn’t be escaping.
If a behavior isn’t the norm across all different cultures and times – and the one woman + one man + 2.5 children family never was – then it isn’t hard wired. It isn’t instinctual. ” Human nature” as the right sees it, is merely a wish list. Invented by institutions and people who want to shape the world in a way that benefits them.
@ naglifar
If I said feminists think all human nature is wrong then I did not intend to. Obviously they are OK with eating, drinking or breathing and so on. What they think is wrong is femininity and masculinity. We cannot act our natures without apology. They are also suspicious of individualism. We should desire nothing more than to be obedient to the state and to receive the minimum dole in return. In fact we were not born to be factory chickens. As factory chickens our souls die.
They call this equality. I call it death.
Of course there are no official rules of romance- this is because such a thing does not need to be written down. The universality of the rules mean that nobody questions or notices them. If they were peculiar to a single culture or point of history then there would be such a list.
You also assume I am anti gay (on no evidence) because this is a common slur the left use.
This is a trap. The left tell you who to dislike. They tell you what to think and say. This seems a liberation at first because it saves so much hard thinking but actually it is slavery! I hope you find some freedom for yourself.
Yes I am MGTOW. I know that this site has created a mythology about us but many of us love women deeply- so much so that we get burned and used every time we get too close. I continue to love- but from a safe distance.
The trouble with the left- the soul crushing aspect- is that to the left neither of us exist as human beings. This is why you can assume personality attributes on the basis of my being MGTOW and you assume I want to oppress people because I am male.
Human beings are more interesting than that.