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!
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! 🙂