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
You’re aware that your previous posts are visible, right? Here’s where you said that:
I’ll even provide a link: https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2019/08/15/incel-says-moving-to-thailand-for-sex-is-a-hassle-so-seek-out-poor-and-or-vulnerable-women-closer-to-home/comment-page-2/#comment-2823367
[Emphasis mine]
And as usual, you would be wrong.
I live in Florida, so I’m surrounded by Christians, many of whom hold views even more regressive than the ones Alexis mentioned, and they are more than willing to share those views with everyone in earshot. You should hear the vehemence with which they support LGBTQI folk’s individualism and nonconformity. And don’t get me started on their admiration for the individuality of other ethnic groups….
As I keep noting, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
At all.
@Richard
So if we all can choose animals that suit us best, wouldn’t that defeat the idea of one concrete human nature? What’s to stop me from choosing dolphins and someone else from choosing ostriches? They are very different, but if we can all pick the animals that suit us best, we can each choose animals that suit our individual nature? This is great! Now we can all coexist with our different natures.
If the right is so much about individual freedom, riddle me this: Why is the right home to so many white supremacists, who have turned conformity into an enforced worldview? For some reason nobody on the right can give me a straight answer on this one, and most conservatives seem to have a very hard time condemning it. While we’re on the subject, if the right loves individual freedom why is it so opposed to LGBTQIPAN+ rights?
Also, because I loves me a good self-own:
and
[Emphasis mine]
Hypocrisy.
I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here…and that you aren’t capable of making a coherent analogy.
Richard: So Peterson uses his lack of understanding of evolutionary biology to get invited on shows where he can demonstrate that he also doesn’t understand philosophy and history (and possibly psychology outside of his narrow specialty)?
Sounds like a great plan.
@Specialffrog
It’s worked out pretty well for him, despite the obvious flaws, simply because most people don’t understand those things either and he says what they want to hear.
I’m amused by Richard’s assertion that leftists like bonobos because they don’t pair-bond, (which is why the leftists spent a generation fighting for the right of gay people to marry) and the right likes chimpanzees because, er, I dunno. They don’t pair-bond either, and the main differences seem to be that they spend more time bullying each other than fucking. Also they raid their neighbors and kill and eat their babies. Better stick with the lobsters.
As to observing Christianity, where do you think leftists come from? I was born into a white-flight suburb in the Midwest. I was raised in Sunday schools and bible camp. Everything mentioned here I’ve seen in the wild and frequently more than once. Few people are more terrified of personal freedom than conservatives. It frightens them if someone is different. I had an aunt snatch her baby out of my arms and run screaming from the house, because I had put on a slightly darker red nail polish than was common. They’re conformists who deeply desire to be told what to do by a big, bulling authority.
@Richard
What? Like, seriously, WHAT?
Oh, do you think that I’m a woman? Or that I want to have children?
Because that is a hard NO to either.
And yeah, this “think about them children!” crap is all cute and distracting, but speaking form expierience: It’s better to have no mother/father at home than to have a shit mother/father at home. Some people are bad parents and guess what: Better they get the boot and the remaining family is still supported. I know, that doesn’t fit the world that never was, you champion.
This is the most hilarious series of sentences in the history of mankind. No, mate, your issue is with women. You That is pretty obvious from all the condescension, the fact that you want them out of the workplace, how you blame them for causing men pain (spoiler, that’s usually other men) and you go so far as to compare a movement that exists to empower women to the fucking Nazis. Dude, the reason why women don’t like you is because you’re vile. And of course, you pull the wristcell-defense and blame everything but your own vile personality.
No one here disputes this, but if you have to denigrate women in order to feel worthwhile, then we’ve got a problem.
For example, why are you proposing to segregate women in the workplace (which amounts to exclusion, given the importance of networking, mentoring, and face-to-face interaction in career development), when it’s obviously the distractible, easily led astray men who have the problem?
I’d be curious to hear you answer this in a way that doesn’t presuppose that women are inherently inferior and less valuable as employees, and that doesn’t rely on evo-pop-psych shibboleths that “only men are providers”. In this day and age, in this economy, women are also providers, and you know it. It’s a rare family that can get by on one income.
That is some fine projection right there.
@BQS
Didn’t you know it’s women’s faults for having cleavage at men? /s
@Buttercup, kupo
Well, for any men who are too distracted it’s not hard to make a blindfold. Or, you know, develop self-control.
The biggest shock for me with that link was when I was hovering over it and saw 2019/08 in the URL. It just goes to show how mainstream and pervasive some of the ideas mocked on this blog still are, even if they’re not quite as extreme as presented here.
Also I kind of thought it was clear that I was talking about a Richard I know in meatspace. I’d actually kind of forgotten that multiple people have posted in these comment sections as “Richard”. And I’m not wholly sure why, but this current Richard reminds me specifically of Mr. Satan.
Dude’s a buffoon and always trying to take credit for saving the world when Goku (and friends) was/were the real hero(s)!
However, you want enforced monogamy
and are open to the possibility of criminal charges for sex outside of marriage
even though being obedient to the state is bad
because right now, without state suport, being a good man doesn’t pay.
In short, you want a authoritarian yet benign state authority to give you your minumum dole of one woman.
I’d suggest you think about this, but it’s quite clear why you chose this philosophy:
Succinct summary, nicely done.
(Stopwatch at the ready, now how long ’til howls of ‘out of context!!!111!!! I wonder?)
Thank you!
I would guess less time than it takes my chihuahua to react to a suspicious dry leaf.
Recently I was at a cottage and a weirdly shaped dry leaf started moving on the floor like some kind of insect. Definitely creeped me out a little.
@Jesalin
I think also it’s just the whole premise of him being simultaneously so obviously out of his element and so confident and assured of his increasingly strained assessments of the situations he’s in. Then there’s the public at large having such an awful memory of a lot of past events in the series for his narrative to be even a little plausible. Previous villains’ antics over just 15 years or so have been, as a Team Four Star gag put it, “lost and forgotten to time.” It perhaps has as much to say about today as it did about the early 90s, maybe more.
I have a video tribute to poor Richard’s plight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciPszqk703k
Richard is right, guys. The world today is just like the Handman’s tale. It’s chilling!
@An Impish Pepper
It’s funny watching him get caught flat-footed and have to make something up on the spot. It is occasionally grating though.
Mr. Satan gets knocked into a sheer cliff a few hundred metres away
Woops! Lost my footing, that doesn’t count as getting knocked out of the ring right?
heh
WWTH: Love it!
Why, in that grim world, I might be in accounts too, and make more than Nigel!
Oh, wait, that part’s already true.
I’ll try again to get it to embed
This is only tangentially related to anything via ole JP, but we’re mostly talking about a troll anyway, so… I think it’s hilarious that (medium spoilers coming up) the Earth Wu in Netflix’s Wu Assassins is the spitting image of Jordan Peterson and has got a head full of apocalyptic survivalist man garbage (and is a serial killer, you figure that out on the first time you see him, hardly a spoiler) and lives near a town of racists. Like they had to have made him look like JP on purpose, I did a spit take when I saw him.
Also I’m embarrassed I didn’t know about the Geary Act before that show, but you live and learn.
@weirwoodtreehugger
I bet Richard is a senior VP with some female colleagues. 🙁 Truly sad times to be a man in this world.
I’m really enjoying the detailed instructions on folding a bandanna
Alexis:
Richard, responding to Alexis:
What, Richard is so reading-deficient that R’s comments immediately substitute “Christian” for “the Right”?
Who gives a fuck about religion? Alexis certainly didn’t mention it. In Europe or the USA or the english speaking world or whatever political subdivision you choose, is it the left or the right that freaks out about changes in norms or violations of them?
Hint for the presuppositionalist and reality-denying Richards of the world, it’s actually the RIGHT.
There is, of course, some confusion here because there are two different “rights” (and two different “lefts”) that are frequently confused, the “economic right” and the “political right”. The economic right is defined as anti-regulation, pro-capital, anti-labor, pro-resource extraction, anti-tax and and pro-wealth disparities. The left is defined as more-or-less the opposite (though in relation to capital and resource extraction the default positions of the left are more complex almost to the point of being to muddled to be of assistance in defining “economic left”).
The political right, however, is a different animal. The political right is very much in favor of regulating behavior. This isn’t a surprise since the political right is defined by its conservatism and conservatism is by definition a personal inclination toward or social movement advocating for clinging to previously established norms (including norms which may have since been disestablished but which conservatives seek to reimpose).
The political left is always going to be against regulation of the person unless that regulation in a specific area of human behavior can be shown to increase human freedom overall, and the political right is always going to be for regulation of human behavior except in those cases where such regulation would be seen as “new” or as limiting previously unregulated areas of human behavior. But this occasional opposition does not relate to a conservative desire to maximize freedom at all. If you present clear evidence that regulation of a previously unregulated human activity will increase freedom overall, that argument will almost universally fail to convince individual political conservatives and will always fail to convince the political right as a whole. These are not considered decisions about how to maximize freedom. Instead these are negative reactions to very idea of changing norms.
In the US, we can easily see this in the right wing resistance to restricting rights to own and carry firearms while simultaneously arguing that police intrusion into personal freedom is justified by the omnipresence of firearms. Using nothing but their own arguments, one can see that they themselves acknowledge a tradeoff between the freedom to own and carry firearms and the freedom from lengthy police stops and intrusive searches. Yet they do not follow this logic through to its conclusion and ask for empirical evidence as to whether human freedom as a whole would expand or contract if a given society were to suddenly lose 90% of its civilian firearms. The US conservatives “defend” the 2nd amendment against change, rather than analyze which position grants the most freedom to a populace.
The largest analytical difficulties occur when the economic left and economic right are conflated with their political namesakes. Here you may truly have some true clashes between a pro-freedom political left and a pro-(economic)-regulation economic left. It’s likely that most people don’t particularly think through any (apparent) conflicts between political leftism and economic leftism (or -rightism and -rightism, if that’s someone’s bent), but most of them are really quite easily justified through the person/corporation distinction (when they aren’t already justified by remembering the distinction between net-freedom and individual-case-freedom we made above). In fact, this philosophical and ethical justificatory work has already been extensively done in the literature if one bothers to read it.
None of this should be surprising or revolutionary, however. In fact, it shows quite a bit of ignorance on Richard’s part to be arguing about this at all.
Why? Because political rightism is defined by its relationship to conservatism and conservatism is defined by its desire to cling to previously established norms. It is by definition the right that will freak out more about violations of norm. It is by definition that the right cares more about forcing the individual to submit to social rules and expectations.
Arguing that the right is more pro-individual liberty than the left is silly. But this isn’t because we have or need empirical evidence that the political right on average cares less about maximizing human freedom (though we’ve done that research and we have those results).
It’s because
1. when someone prioritizes previously established social norms over individual freedom to engage in behavior that would violate those norms, we actually define that as a conservative position, and
2. the people who consistently take more conservative positions than liberal positions are the people we define as conservatives, and
3. the people who base their politics on conservatism and/or appealing to conservatives are defined as the political right.
There’s really no sensible argument to the contrary, and Richard’s “Nuh-uh, and you’re a bigot!” carries both the intellectual weight and the emotional flavor of the most reflexive assertion of a five-year old.
@Weasel-Rah:
As Jeanette Winterson’s mother said to her: “Why be happy when you could be normal?”
@Richard: re: religious right’s influence being made up by leftist media
I live a couple hours north of a place called Colorado Springs. They are so right-wing that their local news media won’t report on things that happen in our state capital because they see the entire northern half of the state as liberal and literally try to pretend like it doesn’t exist.
This is a city with the population of just under 500,000.
That is profoundly disturbing.
@Jesalin:
It is. My grandmother lived there and my mom and I had to go back and forth all the time because she needed us to take care of her. So I’ve spent a lot of time there, and it is a disturbing place. A very beautiful place, but definitely disturbing.
@Jesalin
Can confirm. I’m probably not too far from Yutolia based on their description and, yeah, the Spring is the capital of right-wing reactionaries in CO
So…Dick hasn’t got anything else to say for now?
Richard: [Crickets]
@WTF and Yutolia
Uh… ok, wow. And I thought the Christian-villes near me were bad. At least they don’t refuse to report on the state capital. They rail at how it’s the bastion of all evil and how probably the antichrist will be born there, if he isn’t born in the godless city of gays by the bay or in the wall-less south first (probably to an immigrant drug-runner rapist sheltered from ICE in the bosom of Garcia’s also-godless sanctuary city), but they report on it…
@Yutolia
That sounds pretty awful. I thought Colorado was a blue state over all, so this is news to me. It must take some effort to pretend that half a state doesn’t exist.
@Lainy
Happy birthday!
Colorado Springs is next to a large Air Force base, and the Air Force’s culture is very right-wing, more so than the other branches. Colorado itself was, I’d say, more small-l libertarian than liberal before cannabis was legalized, then there was a big migration there of lefties- I had a whole group of friends move there at once because they all needed medical mj and you couldn’t get it legally anywhere else. The voting patterns of the state have changed drastically in the last decade.
@Weasel-Rah: there’s way more than one Air Force base. There’s:
– Fort Carson
– NORAD
– Peterson Air Force Base
– Schriever Air Force Base
– Air Force Academy
@Naglfar:
Right now the state is purple, which is awesome! Because up until recently, other than the Denver area, the state was as red as red can get.
Plus, who can forget Focus On the Family? That’s based in the Springs and it has it’s very own exit off I-25. Their news paper (the Gazette Telegraph) is where James Dobson first published his column, which was all about how a man needs to control his family, through physical punishment if necessary.
Colorado Springs is where the Air Force Academy is. I was in the USAF from 1979-1987 and the Academy was just kind of right-wing, while the rest was pretty much neutral because not that many of the officers were Academy grads. At least at the bases where I was stationed, anyway. I’m sure it’s worse now, though.
Colorado is getting bluer and bluer as time goes on as far as I can tell, and it’s awesome. I actually considered going into the Air Force (mostly because of my dad who was) but I turned 18 in summer 2003. I *was not* about to go into the middle of all that bullshit at the time
That’s more than I thought! I had family working at Cheyanne Mountain in the early 80’s, full on Cold War paranoia central. The Cold War went away but the cold warriors didn’t…
@Hambeast:
I would say in the Springs that the Academy is actually less right wing than Fort Carson and especially NORAD.
@Lainy: Happy Birthday!
I do have to mention, though, that the Springs has a fabulous underground scene.
@Yutolia
Ugh, UGH, Dobson. My parents used to be into that BS he spouted years ago (they’ve gotten much better since) and had a couple of his damn books around. You wanna screw up an impressionable tween girl with excellent reading skills for life, especially on sexuality? Just let her read some of that. Don’t ask me how I know. :/
@Banana Dakry:
OMG, Dobson is such an unbelievable asshole. My grandmother believed in the crap he spouted too.
Thanks for the birthday wishes Guys. Today is my first day of classes for the new Term so I couldn’t go to crazy last night, But I did buy myself a large frozen strawberry Margarita last night. I had a lot of fun.
I find it interesting that Richard has gone completely dark after that litany of responses and deconstructions…
Oh well, out of sight, out of mind I suppose.
@Lainy
Happy (belated) Birthday!!!
Hope you had a happy birthday, Lainy! 🙂