Let’s take another brief excursion to the Incels.is forums, where one prolific poster is setting forth a slightly new version of an old incel folk belief — namely, that being raped is really much less traumatic than being an incel.
So many bad arguments here. Just because a women says yes to sex with particular men doesn’t mean she’s saying yet to every man who wants to, er, penetrate her hole. Nor does it mean that raping a “foid” is basically the equivalent to shoplifting or denting a person’s car.
Naturally, though, most of the commenters agree close to a hundred percent with Mr. Deleted Member.
“PIV rape should be a mild annoyance to women at worst,” offers BiryaniCel. “Vaginas were meant to be penetrated. Anal rape is traumatizing though.”
“[C]omplaints of sexual abuse or molestation should only be taken seriously in case of the victim being children or male,” adds another since-deleted commenter.
In a followup comment, the same commenter offers up the thought that
If rape was so traumatizing, and if they’re really avert to it, then women wouldn’t dresses sluttish, nor they demeanor wouldn’t be so provocative and uncaring. the only aversion they’ve is to low-value males.
Sign. This belief about “dressing sluttish” — which is held by many backwards people outside the incelosphere — is why we needed the slut walks in the first place.
“My theory,” explains Divergent_Integral,
is that a large part of the psychological trauma caused by rape stems from societal imprinting that it’s literally the worst thing that can happen to a foid (short of murder). If a foid were to be brought up in a social vacuum, she herself would never come up with the notion that rape is the most awful and traumatizing thing possible. If anything, such a foid would view rape as a minor inconvenience at the most.
This is strikingly similar to Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell’s take on incest (that is, sexual abuse) — that girls are traumatized by it largely because “girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”
In another comment, Divergent_Integral adds,
Rape can accurately be defined as ugly men having sex. Period. No need to invoke concepts like consent or force. For even if a foid initially concedes to having sex with an unattractive male, she will soon regret it (or her girlfriends will do so for her) and “realize” that her consent was given either under duress or under false pretext. That is to say, she will redefine her sexual encounter with the ugly male as rape; regardless of what actually happened.
A commenter called Mainländer has this to say:
I suffered so much at the hands of women that my capacity to empathize with them is limited to extremely bad stuff. If a foid is tortured to death, yeah, I’ll feel bad for her. But expecting me to feel bad for some slut who drank too much in some party and some normie with a face below her standards fucked her, when most foids have a “rape kink”? I just can’t take it seriously.
In another comment, Mainlander twists the argument into a justification for statutory rape.
If you think about it, one of feminism’s main goals is making sure normie and below men can’t have any ways of ascending outside of betabuxxing some old roastie.
Can’t ascend with drunken foids, can’t try to just be first with super young foids, etc.
All I can really say at this point is “ugh.”
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
All righty then, boys… let’s see how you like it.
I have to ask, because I’ve seen the term bandied about here recently and I really, REALLY don’t want to Google it, but what’s the definition they are using for “foid”?
I ask this knowing I’m inviting psychic trauma, but will I’m curious.
The arrogance. The ignorance. The ugliness. It’s all so hard to take. No wonder David has to give himself a vacation once in a while.
I join David in saying “Ugh.”
Also a heavy sigh.
@Brian:
I have to ask, because I’ve seen the term bandied about here recently and I really, REALLY don’t want to Google it, but what’s the definition they are using for “foid”?
Woman; short for “femoid”—the full word apparently wasn’t quite disdainful and dehumanizing enough.
This is endless. And tiresome. Okay, I’m going to call their bluff. A good person does not wish to inflict trauma on anyone else. Not for personal benefit. Not for revenge. Not to “even out” unfair/unbalanced situations. A good person who has experienced trauma especially knows how bad trauma is, and thus desires to not even inflict it on their enemies, if it can reasonably be avoided. No, not even “lesser” traumas than the one(s) you have personally experienced, as if all people were equally traumatized by the same things.
You are not a good person.
Why do you deserve to be “given” sex, exactly?
It’s not hard to guess why someone might have wanted to delete his member. A lot of these guys are probably actual rapists.
No, no, No, NO. It’s such a small word, it has a simple, clear meaning, yet they don’t understand it or accept it. And lying to someone to get sex is rape too. It isn’t up to them to decide how traumatic rape is, and it’s not a trauma competition anyway.
Hey, incels: Your mouth is meant to accept food. You eat food all the time. So you can’t object when we cram some noni and casu martzu down your throat.
Oh, you think vomit fruit and live larva cheese are disgusting? Pfft, that’s only because you’ve been socially conditioned to think they’re disgusting.
I see. Rape is bad if a man rapes a man. Got it.
@Kat
Everything is only bad when it is done to a man. Unless that man is a minority or a Chad.
Wish I could remember the name of the woman who said, when asked if she had a rape fantasy: Yes, I do have a rape fantasy – more convictions, and longer sentences.
That first poster does have something of a point. Like, long term loneliness and social isolation is definitely unhealthy for humans. But his solution is so wrong (and it’s not lack of sex anyway, but lack of intimacy/connection, which he could get from (gasp) other men). Lots of us are or have been lonely, and the solution is to try and form connections, not violate other people’s bodily autonomy.
And there’s certainly an argument for society being redesigned in such a way as to make that connection easier: e.g. more walkable cities, which allows for people to make connections more naturally. More community spaces, community outreach to people who are (or are likely to be isolated).
Well said, @Angie 😕
Ranking traumas on some kind of absolute scale is a vile thing to do, even more so when you can feel free to minimise one trauma because you never experienced it yourself. For me, I think I took more emotional damage from being told my entire teenage years that I was inherently undesirable (yes guess what incels, that also happens to what you would call ‘foids’) than I did from being sexually assaulted, but I know better than to apply that to anyone else’s experience.
There’s a subjective element in trauma that makes ranking traumas inherently impossibly flawed…and yet it’s something people do anyhow? Like, not everyone who participates in military action will become traumatized, and, similarly, not every person who experiences non-consensual sex (which may or may not be defined as rape by them or others) will be traumatized. That doesn’t mean the POTENTIAL for trauma is not there.
Just…I know I am preaching to the choir here on this page, but also, if you DO NOT have a vagina you ARE NOT the authority on what penetration does or does not feel like in different circumstances, sexual or otherwise. And even if you do possess a vagina, your experiences do not mean you necessarily understand everyone else’s experiences. There is so little understanding for the experiences of other humans here that it’s chilling. But, depressingly, not surprising.
Lemmie guess…these assholes don’t know OR care that women can get anally raped.
It’s not just that they hideously imagine that their trauma is worse.
It’s that they deny it’s self-inflicted.
For them, women ask for it, while incels are victims.
Why do they assume this? Why do they deny their own responsibility?
Because they’re men. And so their moral worth, to them, is assured.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Casu Marzu is considered a delicacy, your threat to shove it down the throat of an incel is like threatening them with free sex from a supermodel. You are threatening someone with a rarity. Rethink your plan of action.
@ Squack:
Lobster is considered a delicacy these days, but I’ve never personally liked the taste. And even a food I liked would be unpleasant if it were shoved down my throat by somebody else, and against my will.
@Squack: Just… just a friendly warning, duder. This is a thread that is going to be fairly grim. Snarkily responding to other people here, this time, isn’t just going to make you look like a colossal asshole, and further poison the well of your ideas, it will also, if you ever get a better ability to self-reflect, make you feel like a gigantic POS. Just… be careful.
For everyone else, warning, I will be discussing this ugly issue directly.
But, yes, Squack, you detected the argument. Now you apparently need to be reminded that there are things called “acquired tastes”. Lots of people like cigars, but if you just shove that down someone’s throat, even someone who likes it, they may end up coughing. Durian is beloved by many but others find gross. Hell, there are people (myself and my brother-in-law included) who find that cilantro smells and tastes like soap. I’ve learned to like cilantro, but it still is something I need to be careful with. My brother-in-law will find it almost always sickening. From broccoli to tomatoes to brussels sprouts, there are things that some like that others don’t. And it’s not just wrong and cruel, but criminal, to try to force food down someone’s throat, even if they like the food but especially if they don’t.
And what if someone happens to be allergic to the thing you’re forcefeeding them? It doesn’t matter if it’s a delicacy then, is it? No, that could actually be attempted manslaughter.
So… the fact that you so reflexively think this way… is not a good look, man. It seems like you have a real inability to tell your preferences from others. It comes off as a serious failing either of empathy or theory of mind, and something you will want to work on if possible. I actually hope it’s just that you’re a partisan pipsqueak asshole who is just belligerent to try to own the libs, because that’s a lot easier to unlearn than what it looks like it might be.
But the forcefeeding analogy isn’t even an ideal one, obviously. Because there really isn’t a good one. Buttercup was just engaging with the implied teleology of the shitty incel argument.
Because sex isn’t food.
We all need food to survive. Sex may be a “need” for non-aro/ace people in the Maslowian sense, but it’s not a survival necessity. For many, sex may be medically contraindicated. For everyone, most varieties of sex carry the risk of sexually transmitted disease; and for a huge amount of people, sex carries the risk of pregnancy.
So forcing sex onto someone, even before you look at the literature or talk to a single fucking human being, is obviously far, far more odious. The person doing it is giving the person something they do not need (whereas forcefeeding at least takes care of the need for someone to eat for the moment) and which has far more serious consequences. And, of course, we know something about the constellation of motivations that drive someone to do that, and it’s to hurt and exploit and dominate.
And rape is, pretty much, the equivalent of forcefeeding a vegan a really shittily cooked steak and probably breaking their teeth or fucking up their throat or giving them food poisoning while doing it. By definition, the person did not want that, to refer back to the original imperfect analogy, meal.
So… be better, man? I won’t even address the sex with a supermodel thing (like, you get that, say, a happily married person would not want to have sex with even the most attractive person they could find because it would be cheating), it’s puerile and silly, but… please, please, for the love of God, stop thinking that forcing people to have any experience, no matter what you would think of that experience, is remotely justifiable, or even in the constellation of acceptable.
Dipshit the Gullible: always wrong, always pathetic.
You’re a patient one, Fred; hat’s off to you.
It is really scary how incels (and many other manospherians besides) seem to lack not just empathy, but a functioning theory of mind. Their confident certainty that everyone else thinks exactly as they do reminds me of nobody else so much as serial killers.
Like, consider this scenario: A person want to introduce you to “a friend” and blindfolds you, sits you down, sets an animal in your lap, then removes the blindfold.
Different people will react VERY differently depending on the animal.
For example, if it is a rat, I would squee, give it my hand to sniff, and then encourage it to scamper up my arm onto my shoulder. While probably also taking my hair out of its ponytail because as much as rats love riding on people’s shoulders, they love doing so while hiding in long hair even more.
But I recognize that even though I think that rats are adorable and wonderful (even if their whiskers tickle when they stick their noses in your ear) other people… do not. They may have a full-blown panic attack. They may hurt themselves or others. They may react, in other words, the way that I would if it was a mantis instead of a rat.
By the same token, they may react to a mantis by giggling at how its claws tickle their bare skin while I curl up in the corner screaming.
I recognize this, but over and over I see manospherians denying it. And that scares me.
@Squack:
”Is considered” a delicacy. By whom? Obviously, not by everyone, or you wouldn’t have had to use the passive construction.
You’re also pointedly ignoring the delivery method. I’m sure you wouldn’t enjoy having your mouth pried open with no warning and food stuffed in there rapidly, without regard for your enjoyment, hunger level, or ability to swallow and breathe.
As for free sex from a supermodel, even assuming it wasn’t a traumatic experience, incels would still find some way to whine about it. They’re the epitome of bad faith. Look at the posts above. They want everyone to pity them for their isolation, their loneliness, their lack of intimacy and connection and hugs. Then a few sentences later, they’re sneering at hugs and intimacy as “betabuxxing for old roasties”.
The lonelyhearts thing is just a fig leaf for the real purpose of these forums, which is to crowdsource justifications for raping women that still allow them to feel like a good person. “Society drove me to it, society owes me, foids are just robot holes designed for penetration, rape doesn’t exist (except when men are the victims)”, and on and on. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for their beliefs.
Even the term “ascending” is grotesque and Orwellian. They’re trying to make rape sound holy.
@Fred B-C:
Great points. I don’t think one necessarily needs to invoke the “food is a biological need” qualifier when drawing parallels for the empathy-challenged. Force-feeding would be horrible regardless of whether the victim was starving or had plenty of food. In fact, incels would claim a well-fed and sated victim is even more of a ideal candidate for force-feeding, since the victim eats food all the time and obviously enjoys it.
There’s this odious belief among predatory men that a woman’s default response is always “yes”. If she doesn’t explicitly say “no”, because she’s too incapacitated or young or inexperienced or afraid, it gets interpreted as automatic consent. It certainly suits rapists to believe that. Again, using the (imperfect) food analogy, maybe someone tries jalapeno peppers once or twice, then decides they don’t like them. Just because they ate one once, that doesn’t mean it’s open season on dumping jalapeno peppers in everything they eat for the rest of their life. But that’s more or less exactly what incels are arguing.
@Gaebolga: I can get very, very aggressive, and will if there’s a serious line crossed. But as much as I don’t like bullies, and see a bullying sentiment commonly in right-wing thought, I just see that
a) If I am right, then I didn’t get there because I’m just intrinsically better but because of things I didn’t fully control, so I need to be patient with others who didn’t get the same chance (even if sometimes a good kick in the butt is needed)
b) People on the left only win if we have a gun (which is not likely to lead to a good world) or if we can peel off some portion of people who either have or are predisposed to have right-wing views, and taking the time with each person lowers the threshold for them to admit that they were wrong and start that personal process of change that aids collective improvement
@Allandrel: If their empathy worked in an unbiased way, they wouldn’t be bigots. Just like if they were rational, they wouldn’t be bigots. It’s incumbent on us to always remember that. To fall into the depths of the alt-right/manosphere way of thinking requires a failure both of intellect and morality.
@Buttercup: An important reminder about their actual motives. As I’ve noted before, I have a friend who started stanning for incels… but only after he had gone down the entire 4chan rabbithole from faux libertarian to “national socialist”… and only after he had driven away his girlfriend and child, which even he had to admit was due to his own conduct. Even when there are people who get sucked into this ideology because of bad things in their lives, if one looks carefully, those bad things come about from an admixture of bad luck and bad social phenomena (the very ones they will downplay and ignore, thus choosing to be bad people, because their preferred punching bags are so much easier and so much more satisfying) and their own conduct, and their present conduct isn’t making it any better. But the idea that all of the loudest bigots are all in the lonelyhearts club is obviously, and even self-admittedly, false.
And, yes, obviously forcefeeding in anything but the most extreme of scenarios (like someone who is having a psychotic break from reality and won’t feed themselves, and even then we have things like intravenous feeding) is wrong no matter if the person is full or starving, and obviously no incel would be happy with a tube pouring durian down their throat, but I did want to point out to Squack that him engaging on the analogy still does not capture how utterly horrifying and fractally evil rape is. Another example of how his nitpicking has the upside of him not having to engage on awful topics, but has the downside of making him look like he’s pettily engaging on those topics.
But good point that, by incel reasoning, we would be more justified in forcefeeding someone who’s already full. It’s wholly dehumanizing logic. If they just thought of women as people, they would naturally think, “Oh, yeah, if you have plenty of consensual sex when you want, you probably have little need for it outside of your preference“… if they even had to get that far down the rabbithole besides just being viscerally, angrily affected by even the barest outlines of the idea.
And, yes, there is that default notion… for the people they dehumanize, of course. Male chauvinists happily accept that their own consent and preferences need to be protected, indeed treated as super-special. For them, it would be odious to dare to put a single jalapeno in their food if they didn’t want it in there.