Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Incels Are the Product of an Incomplete Sexual Revolution

Neither feminists nor social conservatives have the right understanding

We all need more freedom to openly discuss—and engage in—sex. Instead, we all too often pounce on provocative opinions and hem in what is Couple in BedIngram Publishing/Newscomdeemed "acceptable" bounds of debate. This is a shame.

Consider the rhetorical maelstrom created when George Mason University economist Robin Hanson recently suggested that the Toronto attack— in which a self-described incel (an involuntary celibate) mowed down 10 pedestrians — shows that we should worry not just about income inequality, but also the sexual inequality that is leaving too many men sexually frustrated. Hanson, whose blog Overcoming Bias is dedicated to raising uncomfortable questions that cut against ingrained thinking, mused that "cultural elites" might consider "redistribution" schemes that could help incels get a fair share of the action.

This was a provocative suggestion, no doubt. But Hanson wasn't really serious about it. He is a libertarian, after all, so talk of "redistribution" was more in the vein of a thought experiment. Still, many people were understandably offended by even the hint of a suggestion that men are "owed" sex, or that this particular man was somehow justified in his violence because of some societal failure to keep his sexual drive satiated. This was, after all, the second instance of incel violence in four years.

But almost everyone reacted poorly.

Liberals roundly pilloried Hanson. Slate's Jordan Weissman called him "America's creepiest economist," before doing an entirely tendentious interview with him with the aim of exposing Hanson as a nutjob. Wonkette's Robyn Pennacchia accused Hanson of "singing the songs of horny men." Motherboard's Samantha Cole declared that Hanson really wants "women to f--k violent men."

Such high dudgeon does little to advance the cause of mutual sexual understanding among men and women. The fact of the matter is that although the sexual revolution offered the possibility of more sexual fulfillment, it also produced new frustrations and challenges.

The New York Times' Ross Douthat, who defended Hanson (and came in for a heap of criticism as a result), rightly pointed out that the "Hefnerian" ethos that the revolution generated has made the "frequency and variety in sexual experience" the "summum bonum of the human condition." This might work for the "beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways." However, it poses special problems for people who lack sexual draw and confidence.

Many feminists consider any discussion of the innate differences between male and female sexuality verboten. But it is hard to deny that evolution has wired the two sexes differently when it comes to sex. The qualitative sexual experience of men and women might be similar. But, by and large, as evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman points out, men tend to desire more sexual partners, need to know someone for less time before wanting to have sex with them, and have lower standards for sexual liaison. By contrast, women tend to be more discerning and discriminating (because they bear the brunt of producing offspring).

The sexual openness of today's liberated women often means that men's more easily stimulated sexuality is constantly triggered. However, social norms still put the onus on men to approach women and open themselves to rejection. The combination of heightened desire and increased risk from assertive women adds up to constant inner anxiety for many young, inexperienced men venturing into the sexual world. This doesn't mean that incels are right or owed, or that sex actually ought to be redistributed, or that incels are the "real" victims here. Indeed, incel forums can be dark and degraded places where misogyny and violent rhetoric often runs amuck. But ferocious and reflexive demonization from the left isn't helping matters. It is still necessary to understand the root cause of these new sexual pathologies.

Now, none of this exonerates conservatives, of course.

All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony. This obviously should not (and will not) happen, if for no other reason than it traps too many couples in emotionally and sexually dead marriages.

The trouble with the sexual revolution isn't that it happened, but that it was incomplete. The problem is not that sex has been over commodified as hardline feminists and conservatives (talk about strange bedfellows!) like to assert; the problem is that it hasn't been commodified enough. The sexual industry in the broadest sense hasn't matured enough yet to cater to the myriad and diverse needs of lonely single people (of both sexes). Where are the Dr. Ruths for single people facing confidence issues or looking for advice? Is it really a surprise that young men turn to each other for solace in the deep recesses of the dark web — and that the result is often very ugly?

Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers. This will require liberals to start taking the plight of people like the incels seriously, and stop penalizing intellectual mavericks like Hanson who have the nerve speak up on their behalf. And it will require conservatives to stop romanticizing an imperfect past and look for viable solutions that don't involve turning back the clock.

This column originally appeared in The Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Should We Take the Plight of Incels Seriously?

    No.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Hey!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You just have to change your standards, man. Not all real-life women are gonna live up to what you see in your porns - in fact, very few have that combination of angry red stretch marks, fistulae, and footlong labia that you find so very attractive.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    HATE SPEECH! STEVE SMITH LIKE WHAT STEVE SMITH LIKE.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    BUCS isn't STEVE SMITH, he's Nick Sarwark. Get your inaccurate identity memes right.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Thanks Wiegel. Maybe you're not as bad as Grandpappy DD says you are.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    STEVE SMITH NOT ENTITLED TO BE OFFENDED ON OWN? STEVE SMITH NOT PRACTICE SOFT SELL. WHY LUMP WITH SALES PEOPLE? NOT FAIR TO STEVE SMITH.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    BUCS is not incel, he is all duracell. Anyway, his problem is a little different. It has to do with the intimidating dimensions of his mating apparatus.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    +2 inch length, 10 inch diameter

  • Mickey Rat||

    Shield rather tghan strato volcano, I suppose.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    His nickname on Tinder is Kilauea. For the dimensions, but also for the property damage.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Also for the high viscosity.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    And the burning sensation that results from contact.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I prefer to say that I melt them.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Hmm, didn't see this one in Greyhawk. What's its damage bonus, and does it have its own ego?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And are there any saving throw modifiers for disease?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No, seriously. No. Sexual release is available 24/7/365 for anyone with a working hand and arm, and probably for anyone period. What makes two (or more) person sex more satisfying than masturbation is the personal connection, even if it is fake. These people are no 'Involuntarily Celibate' - at least that is not the core problem - they are Involuntarily Isolated. And that is by no means as easy to solve as a lack of sex.

  • Rich||

    Well said.

  • ipsquire||

    But it raises the same question - if it's appropriate to redistribute wealth, why not companionship? Some people have more than they need, some are lacking.

  • shawn_dude||

    Seriously?

    Wealth doesn't have civil rights and people (companionship) do. So there's that. "Redistributing" people as a commodity has a very dark history.

    However, legalizing prostitution would provide the so-called "incels" a secondary means to acquire their companionship.

  • Agammamon||

    Why not tell them that they can discharge their duty to the state through the funding of prostitutes to serve the needy? Its basically moving prostitution into the charity bracket - fund groups of pros to meet the unmet needs?

    Or tell people that, as a condition of practice - if the wish to work, they must also screw someone assigned by the Bureau of InCel? Part of the social contract, you know?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    One of people's civil rights is property, which includes wealth.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    That's the thing - it is NOT appropriate to redistribute (earned, not stolen) wealth.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Indeed. I'll make a list of women that must be made available for my uses. The government must then make it happen. As I identify as a make who bangs 'A list' porn stars, models, and entertainers.

    If this does not happen it's discrimination.

  • ipsquire||

    But it raises the same question - if it's appropriate to redistribute wealth, why not companionship? Some people have more than they need, some are lacking.

  • MoreFreedom||

    It's immoral to redistribute anything, because it involves using force to take it from someone in the first place. But it's a great question to ask that hot babe who wants to redistribute your money (not so much for the mostly ugly folks who want to do the same).

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Legalize prostitution.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    You'd have to go further and subsidize it for true equivalence.

  • Ariki||

    "Equity at all costs! Men must be able to get sex as easily as woman!
    That is the only true way to our glorious collective utopia!"

    I wonder how long before this becomes a thing?

  • JDMcHuget||

    But with therapy too, so these boys who never had any real training in sex can put it in perspective. Parents are often oblivious. Mine were and I coulda easily been an incel

  • kinghiram91||

    Actually, that isolation isn't so much involuntary as it is a reaction to neglecting self-care. Naturally, if a guy chooses not to do his laundry, take showers, maybe refrain from eating trash or playing video games or watching anime all day, then, yeah, he's going to find himself lonely. However, if they actually gave a damn about themselves, did a few loads of laundry, took a shower, shaved, hit the gym a couple times a week, and practiced more self-care in general, they might find women want to be around them more. But no, they don't want to be "normies" like the rest of us. Their juxtaposition is strange. Their narcissism feels like it's in direct contrast with their self-neglect. I feel like if I were more narcissistic, my self-care would take number one importance.

  • Ariki||

    Purpose is what these men lack.
    Having a sense of purpose, something to strive for, is a necessity for a good life.
    That's why professional gamers aren't killing real people, they have a purpose.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'd read that brief article.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What does this article have to do with illegals?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The hotter ones could be made sex slaves?

  • colorblindkid||

    Incels are like .0000001% of men, who mostly just shitpost and vent online.

    Worry about incels is the new Satanic Cult panic.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Incels are like .0000001% of men, who mostly just shitpost and vent online.

    Soooo... this comment section?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Hey!!!!!

    *hangs head*

    Yeah...

  • JDMcHuget||

    I'd say the rates are higher. Probably 1-3 percent of late teens and early 20s males. You don't notice them because they wear a mask, so you can't read their anger while in public. It's covert narcissism. I've known several from high school and college days. I'm glad none of them did anything drastic, but I wouldn't have been surprised if they did.

  • JDMcHuget||

    I'd say the rates are higher. Probably 1-3 percent of late teens and early 20s males. You don't notice them because they wear a mask, so you can't read their anger while in public. It's covert narcissism. I've known several from high school and college days. I'm glad none of them did anything drastic, but I wouldn't have been surprised if they did.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Someone is angling hard to become the brown Brown.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Got Laid?™

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    incel

    So... this is really a thing now?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Yes.

  • gormadoc||

    It's been a thing for years. Be glad you only learned of it now.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Sorry, but by definition, celibate is "abstaining" from sex.
    By definition, abstain is "restrain oneself".

    There is no "incel".
    Celibacy is always voluntary.

    What is being described here is "Not Getting Laid". Doesn't need a bullshit title.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It makes for an easy journalism hashtag.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Sorry, Tom, word meanings are not always rational. This is the term we are stuck with. Besides, I think it started as a self-label on reddit.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Almost any pop psychology term associated with sex is deliberately not rational. It is all emotional appeals.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Celibacy is always voluntary.""

    But I guess involuntarily celibate sounds better than too gross to fuck.

  • ||

    What's the difference between social justice and regular justice?

  • DarrenM||

    So, what you're saying is that the term "incel" is an oxymoron.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Impotent mystic was already taken.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Summum bonum is my wife's nickname for my penis.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    I think you misheard her when she said "Sunny Bono."

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's possible, she did have her mouth full at the time.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What kind of sandwich?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    With what?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I think she meant the sum of your boner; totally different from greatest good.

  • Generalissimo||

    I just invortled. Involuntary chortle.

  • AlmightyJB||

    So do we now have to force health insurance companies to cover Fleshlights?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Hopefully.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What do you call all that extra material around a fleshlight?

    A sex robot.

  • IamNotEvil||

    For private insurance maybe, but for government insurance (or single payer) it should be RealDolls at least.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Given government standard levels of care, your single-payer RealDoll is gonna end up being a retired CPR dummy with a jar of off-brand petroleum jelly stuck to the bottom of it.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Go on...

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Due to high material costs, it will be the infant CPR dummy.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Or those retired drug sniffing dogs and a can of peanut butter.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Or those retired drug sniffing dogs and a can of peanut butter.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Pro tip: get yourself two dogs, and smear peanut butter from the toes on up, and jelly from the neck down. When they meet in the middle it's glorious.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    What breed of dog?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Damn, we're gonna get lube? I might be convinced to betray libertarianism just yet!

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    5, 1 hour sessions with an Obamacare approved hooker every year with a proper diagnosis.

  • Chipper Jonze||

    Blue Cross covered BJs in Deep Throat

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    The media whores focus like a laser on some miniscule out-group and try to gin up all kinds of feelz to get the herd lowing and bleeting and stamping their little feet. And they wonder why fake news is a thing. Ride that lightning.

  • DajjaI||

    No we don't need to take their plight seriously. Quite the reverse - we must ridicule them mercilessly until they get back to work or autism 'treatment' sessions or whatever they do all day.

  • Ron||

    It seems to me its not conservatives but feminist who want to stop prostitution, they don't like the competition

  • Eidde||

    Is this why most journalists want to stop prostitution?

  • markm23||

    And politicians.

    Whores have _some_ standards, so they make the politicians look bad.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Can we just cut out the bullshit and call feminists what they really are; man haters.

  • Technomad||

    Feminism has degenerated into a "let's see how many pins we can stick in the men" club. Anything that appeals to men, they hate reflexively.

  • Azathoth!!||

    What?


    Now, none of this exonerates conservatives, of course.

    All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony. This obviously should not (and will not) happen, if for no other reason than it traps too many couples in emotionally and sexually dead marriages.

    Conservatives? The same people who elected an open serial philanderer? The same people who are ignoring the Stormy Daniels issue--while leftists shriek about pussy-grabbing, objectification of women, dangerous 'male gazes' and have instituted a bizarre strain of puritanism wherein women can decide that their honor has been besmirched years after the fact--in whatever way takes their fancy and all must behave as if the slight is the most heinous crime imaginable--and was enacted seconds ago-- but must be treated as if they are fully sexual beings with freedom and agency to rival all comers.

    Yes, Shikha, conservatives are the problem. Right.

  • Tony||

    They're hypocrites so that makes it OK?

  • Eidde||

    In a world of bad political choices, some of them still choose to hold their noses and vote Republican because your party sucks so badly.

  • Tony||

    Appealing to mouth-breathing idiots is a special talent that Democrats sometimes lack and Republicans excel at, despite not being good at anything else.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a choice between a party that does lip service to personal liberty, or a party that does lip service to economic liberty.

    When in reality both are hostile to any liberty.

    Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Hey!

  • vek||

    At least Giant Douche actually cuts taxes sometimes! They never quite get around to cutting spending... But when is the last time Turd Sandwhich did anything useful for person liberty? Legal weed is literally about the only decent thing to come from the left in decades, and I don't smoke weed so it's more of a matter of principle to me... The tax cuts are real.

    As bad as they both are, I just can't see how any libertarian leaner can conceivably think the Dems are even equal to the Republicans. They're sooo much worse it's unbelievable. They're not Bill Clinton in the 90s anymore, which was probably the last time the Dems could be argued to be sane.

  • Mark22||

    Democrats don't pay like service to personal liberty. Liberty means taking responsibility for your actions, while Democrats advocate helping people about that

  • Eidde||

    "Appealing to mouth-breathing idiots is a special talent that Democrats sometimes lack"

    Maybe *sometimes* but not usually.

  • VinniUSMC||

    I don't know what planet Tony is from. If it weren't for their appeal to mouth-breathing idiots, there wouldn't be a Democrat party.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Democrat mouth breathing idiots generally are unaware that they are idiots. See Tony.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Appealing to mouth-breathing idiots is a special talent that Democrats sometimes lack""

    They seem to be doing a great job of this in the last couple of years.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, the average progressive has a sub-Biden IQ. Somewhere south of 90. This is why you're all such uselsss sacks of shit. The main difference between you and the sack of shit being the sack

  • Azathoth!!||

    Tony, they're not hypocrites.

    Leftists have told themselves that conservatives are hypocrites on this. They point out the whole Clinton thing. And conservatives say--as they said then that it wasn't about the sex, it was about the perjury.

    Leftists refuse to believe this. They refuse to believe it after seeing the popularity of Trump and Gingrich. They refuse to believe it after seeing that porn sites do best in red areas.

    Yes, there are definitely religious anti-porn crusaders. But they're anti-porn. They're not anti-sex.

    The women shrieking that they should be able to walk down the street nude making sexual gesticulations and have no one look at them are anti-sex.

  • Nige||

    'Leftists refuse to believe this.'

    Especially if they were there and watched it unfold or if they read about it and realise that the perjury came quite a long time after the sex.

    'The women shrieking that they should be able to walk down the street nude making sexual gesticulations and have no one look at them are anti-sex.'

    Since the point of even this crude caricature is that they should be able to do so without being raped, does that make you pro-rape?

    But your overall point is correct, Republicans have been appalling moral hypocrites about everything since forever, and Trump is just the latest, ghastliest and least deniable manifestation.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Oh please, such a predictable bunch of hackneyed crap.

  • vek||

    Let's be honest here... If somebody walked through Compton with a hand full of 100 dollar bills waving them around at the poor black people and got mugged would anybody be surprised???

    It's not that a woman SHOULD get raped if they dress super whorey in the wrong situation, but it's pretty easy to understand how it's going to increase your odds. Just like the guy in Compton SHOULDN'T get mugged either, but it's obvious how such behavior would increase your odds.

  • Nige||

    'super whorey'

    You have to wonder where the incels pick it up.

  • vek||

    You don't like "super whorey?" It's a good phrase! Everybody knows what you mean. I'm not opposed to women dressing like whores in all situations, I'm just saying that if you're in the wrong place/wrong time it's not exactly the best of ideas.

  • Mark22||

    Republicans? You mean voters? Candidates? Who?

    I'm an independent and last time I fell for crap like yours and didn't vote for Trump. Next time, I'm probably going to vote for him because while I don't like marital infidelity and talk about pussy grabbing, I like a Corey Booker or Kamala Harris for president even less.

  • Nige||

    Oh man, that marital infidelity and dirty-talk is super bad, isn't it?

  • Mark22||

    Not as bad as Corey Booker's racism or Kamala Harris's sexism.

  • shawn_dude||

    They elected Trump *and* Pence. And Pence is, as Trump described him, the guy that would like to "hang" all the homosexuals.

    And all if the white evangelicals that support Trump also support sexually regressive laws. But somehow you've managed to blame liberals for evangelical hypocrisy.

  • Fancylad||

    "Pence is, as Trump described him, the guy that would like to "hang" all the homosexuals"
    I see you get your facts from the comments section at Huffpo, huh.

  • Mark22||

    By "sexually regressive laws" you mean not wanting to pay for your girlfriend's abortions?

  • Hank Phillips||

    I like Shikha better and better with every mystical bigot she drops into a carpet-biting fit.

  • juris imprudent||

    Progressivism's promise

    W T actual F?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    There is no automatic or human censor here, you can spell that out in full.

  • Rich||

    Nice album name.

    *** looks to Havoc ***

  • Rich||

    *Havok*

    Fucking autocorrect.

  • Rich||

    *Havok*

    Fucking autocorrect.

    Fucking squirrels.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    I guess you could say Harvey Weinstein was incel for varying periods of time. Without his power and money who knows how long before Harvey steals a tank and tears up some strip mall in Buffalo?

  • Seamus||

    He also mused if there was any way to redistribute sex.

    There is. It's called monogamy.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Also *sunspex on* the invisible hand...of the market. Filthy minds.

  • ||

    No.

    Alex Manassian apparently had other deeper mental issues.

    Next.

  • Tony||

    Forcing women to fuck guys they don't want to fuck would seem to be a nonstarter in any political philosophy these days.

    Is pointing and laughing a useful approach?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Is pointing and laughing a useful approach?

    Your mom thinks so.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Crusty paid extra for that.

  • kinghiram91||

    No u

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Don't take it personally. Pull the wool over your own eyes. Tell yourself it's a choice.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Forcing women to fuck guys they don't want to fuck

    The novel "We" can serve as a useful instruction guide when your precioussssss governmentsessss gets to that point.

  • Rich||

    This. "We" should be better known.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There was that female porn star who committed suicide over the crap storm she caught when she publically said she did not want to perform with actors who did gay films.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There was that female porn star who committed suicide over the crap storm she caught when she publically said she did not want to perform with actors who did gay films.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Two of them?!?

  • Tony||

    Okay, and do you suppose the number of people who've committed suicide for the crap they get for being gay is greater, equal to, or less than 1?

  • damikesc||

    I'll bite: How is this relevant?

    The porn star doesn't want to work with men who do gay porn because, like it or not, gay men have a substantially higher STD transmission rates than hetero couples.

    Numbers are numbers.

    Plenty of gay porn stars are straight who are gay-for-pay.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Changing the subject when confronted with a fact that contradicts your thesis, Tony? That is so you.

  • Fancylad||

    "Never mind what I said, now look over here" - t. Tony

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Big Fleshlite is behind this trend.

    Follow the money!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Some of us would require a bigger fleshlight than others, if you know what i mean.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Just use more lube.

    Oh my God - Big Lube is in cahoots with Big Fleshlite!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Which ties them to Bezos through the drum of lube from Prime Day. This goes all the way to the most powerful in the world.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Aw, you are making me all nostalgic about Jesse.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Don't forget Big Bottle Brush. Or have I said too much?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Citizen X has big fists.

  • ||

    "Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers."

    I just choked on a gnocchi.

    On a publication called Reason no less.

    Progressives move nothing forward. They retard. There is no utopia that can be built where 'everyone wins' unless you get VERY, very stabby and murdery.

    Shakia should consider taking her, em, talents to MotherJones because there's very little classical liberal or libertarian in her. Plus she has a clunky-clumsy take on conservatism which always leaves me rolling my cavatelli too hard to the point I have to start over.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I just choked on a gnocchi.

    ...always leaves me rolling my cavatelli too hard to the point I have to start over

    Come on, man. Those are barely even euphemisms.

  • ||

    TO YOU.

  • gaoxiaen||

    You have to peel back the manicotti first. Or in your case, the penne.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    I know I shouldn't, but I have to say it.
    She's literally worse than Nikki.

  • sarcasmic||

    Progressives progress towards totalitarianism.

    They want freedom to mean asking permission and obeying commands.

    They say that corporations, organizations that only exist because of voluntary actions, will be our masters.

    And the only way to stop these evil corporations is to give more power to government, an organization of men who use violence to get their way, so as to save us from those damned capitalists who engage in trade.

    To a progressive, anything voluntary is coerced, and anything coerced is voluntary.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Progressives progress towards totalitarianism.""

    But they will have the "right" person in charge.

  • Mark22||

    Hillary? Kamala? Joe Biden? Al Gore?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    How fucking dense do you have to be to read that passage as positive? Do you know what "utopia" means?

  • Mark22||

    Do you know what "we must offer relief to losers" means?

    Shikha put up a strawman progressive utopia to advocate the usual, totalitarian progressive bullshit.

  • Mark22||

    Do you know what "we must offer relief to losers" means?

    Shikha put up a strawman progressive utopia to advocate the usual, totalitarian progressive bullshit.

  • Mark22||

    Do you know what "we must offer relief to losers" means?

    Shikha put up a strawman progressive utopia to advocate the usual, totalitarian progressive bullshit.

  • Mark22||

    Do you know what "we must offer relief to losers" means?

    Shikha put up a strawman progressive utopia to advocate the usual, totalitarian progressive bullshit.

  • Number 2||

    Dear Mr. Monacled:

    As a full-blooded Sicilian let me emphatically say that MY CULTURE IS NOT FOR YOU TO CHOKE ON!

  • ||

    Well, I'm Calabrese so let me tell you we digest Sicilians with some of your own Averna!

  • gormadoc||

    It's pretty clear that she's criticizing progressives for being hypocrites and conservatives for being too stuck in the past to deal with the problems of today.

    None of it requires you or her believing in progressivism.

  • shawn_dude||

    "Progressives" != "Progressivism"

    Sheesh.

    Reading comprehension.

  • Eidde||

    Another Shikha rerun.

    And in fairness, please note that Charles Manson and his female acolytes probably weren't exactly motivated by lack of sex when they committed all their murders.

  • Eidde||

    Here's a suggestion - violent criminals tend as a rule to have impulse-control problems - unless they're part of organized crime and operate their unlawful activities as a business.

    As for the impulse-control-problem-having violent criminals, wouldn't the same impulse-control problems (and their undesirability as husbands) lead them to have premarital sex with available women with low standards?

    As for the organized businesslike criminals, they're often alphas who attract women with low (moral) standards.

    Mao Tse-Tung committed serial adulteries with young women. It didn't seem to restrain his murderous impulses.

  • ||

    "impulse-control-problem"

    Like Joe Pesci?

    "Mao Tse-Tung committed serial adulteries with young women. It didn't seem to restrain his murderous impulses."

    So what you're saying is they go hand in hand? Are you saying harem = moiders? Haram!

  • Eidde||

    I'm suggesting that you can find plenty of murderers who were "getting some."

    Before we start profiling guys who aren't getting any as potential killers, let's think of Mao, Hitler, Goebbels, all those gangsters with their "molls," etc.

  • Eidde||

    OTOH, guys who are mad at the world, or at women, for their not getting any, may fit the profile.

    But men who are disposed to revenge their personal problems on the rest of the world, may or may not be "cured" with regular getting-some-ness. Maybe they'll focus on some other aspect of their lives which falls short of their ideal, and punish the world for *that.*

  • RabbitHead||

    And for guys that find "getting some" really important, keeping their source happy is sometimes an incentive for getting and keeping their shit together.

  • Eidde||

    Then there's Hitler and Eva (though maybe his sexual enjoyment was hampered by his unitesticularosity), and Goebbels and...lots of women.

  • Eidde||

    Also Catherine the Great, the famous pacifist. /sarc

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Mao Tse-Tung committed serial adulteries with young women

    More like Mao Say Tongue my dong or I will murder your families, am I right?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    More like "Mao Tse-Tung committed serial adulteries with young children".

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Mine was funnier.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Yeah.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Yeah.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Yeah.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Yeah, agreed.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Wow. I guess you have the squirrels' approval too.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The squirrels love a good joke.

  • Eidde||

    STEVE SMITH RAPE YOU, YEAH YEAH YEAH

  • Eidde||

    STEVE SMITH BETTER THAN BEATLES. HIS VICTIMS LIKE TO SING "HELP."

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    I larfed.

  • Thomas O.||

    It's funny because there's actually a Steve Smith in Journey.

  • Zeb||

    But men tend to be most of the violent criminals in society. And I'd go so far as to speculate that the type who have the potential to be violent criminals has significant overlap with the type who has a hard time finding voluntary sexual partners. SO it seems like a reasonable hypothesis that lots of loser men who can't get laid isn't a great thing for a society.

  • Eidde||

    But even if they find women with loose morals, or pay prostitutes, they're still going to be losers. Maybe the sex will dull their discontent like in Huxley's Brave New World, and maybe it won't.

    There are so many programs in prison for having the men prisoners connect with their children, etc. Those guys aren't incels.

    Now, if they find a self-sacrificing woman and settle down, that might be one thing. Though I wouldn't ask the ladies to make that kind of sacrifice by marrying men with violent tendencies for the greater social good.

  • Eidde||

    AND...look at the violence associated with sexual jealousy, marital and custody disputes, etc., etc.

  • VinniUSMC||

    I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the majority of violent offenders are not "alpha male" types who tend to have no problem finding women who want to sleep with them.

    You might find a few nerds who can't get laid that eventually break, but they're definitely not out in society committing violent offenses on a regular basis.

  • DajjaI||

    "You have autism which means you will never have normal peer interactions. But here are a few tricks you can use to appear normal and if you work hard at it then maybe one day you can have a girlfriend."

    Incels are the product of the mental illness caliphate.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Suggested alt text:

    "Those toes aren't going to suck themselves, soy boy."

  • Just Say'n||

    That was funny

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I like to imagine that those are his feet, and that he's crimped at a horrifying angle.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    On the other hand, a dude that flexible has absolutely no need to seek out a sexual partner.

  • Zeb||

    I can suck my toes (or could before my back got fucked up this winter). You need a bit more flexibility than that to get the sexual autonomy you are thinking of.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This is the weirdest brag i've seen yet on Hit'n'Run. At least your toe sweat tastes better than an IPA, right?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    They're different?

  • Ken Shultz||

    We shouldn't even take the word "incel" seriously.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Dork" is derogatory. Need a new word.

  • So97gc||

    I was incel before incel was cool man!!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Back in my day when a man couldn't get laid he masturbated onto a large cookie with his other sexless pals, but these lazy millennials just sit at home and whine about their dry hogs on the internet.

    It's why this country is going to hell in a hand basket!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I just googled dry hog; I never knew what porcine skin problems entailed, before now.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    You're welcome.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I just googled dry hog; I never knew what porcine skin problems entailed, before now.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    Any bands?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Wasn't Porcine Skin Problems the title of a Primus album?

  • mtrueman||

    " there's very little classical liberal or libertarian in her"

    She argues for more prostitution. Isn't that libertarian enough for you?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    No.

  • mtrueman||

    I thought that libertarians are almost uniquely pro-prostitution. Both the left and right have been anti-prostitution.

  • Gorbag||

    The left wants to make prostitution mandatory. The right wants to encourage it privately, but discourage it publicly.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Would she like some?

    I'll be here all week. Boink your waitresses.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    You and Freddy the Jerk should get together, have children.

  • Tony||

    It would seem that now that people can for the most part choose their own mates, we can look forward to a future of better-curated genes. Our species must have been selecting for the ability to rape and bully for so long, now it's more frequently up to the judgment of women. My problem is not that this leaves the uglies behind (sorry, life isn't fair), but that women often display a real lack of standards on this front.

    I read an interview with a gay incel, and that's some real shit. Men are visual creatures and that scene is nothing but brutality for someone who doesn't want to settle in his own league. But it's terribly fun if you are a beautiful person.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Your beauty is all on the outside, isn't it.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Doubtful. Anyone who brags anonymously about their looks on the internet is usually full of shit.

  • Just Say'n||

    Serious question: why are you progressives so obsessed with genetic engineering?

    I realize that your movement was born out of eugenics, but don't you think it's time to give up the whole "better-curated genes" crap that the Nazis borrowed from you guys?

    Also, I highly highly doubt that "rape" was a crucial part in reproducing in the West since the 16th Century

  • Tony||

    Who's obsessed? Why are conservatives so obsessed with making lives miserable for living humans they deem undesirable?

    Eugenics was a misguided idea much like libertarianism. Let's hope we don't need a global war to confirm it.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Why are conservatives so obsessed with making lives miserable for living humans they deem undesirable"

    Yeah, definite citation needed on this one.

    I'm not trying to be combative. I'm serious. Planned Parenthood was born out of eugenics and the Bell case before the Supreme Court was heralded by progressives until the Nazis used it as a defense in the Nuremburg trial.

    When most people hear about "incels" they shrug and think "those people are rather pathetic", but your first response is "better-curated genes", which is a rather disturbing take.

    I'm just wondering what is with the obsession of genetic engineering?

  • Tony||

    I wasn't talking about genetic engineering but normal old natural and sexual selection.

    That early progressives were often racists and even motivated by racism is often used disingenuously to imply that conservatives were any different.

    If you were an ignorant 19th century person and we hadn't yet experienced the Holocaust or Star Trek, wouldn't eugenics at least possibly occur to you as not immediately the worst idea ever?

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually, conservatives of that era were very much different from progressives. GK Chesterton and other conservative columnists of the time were adamantly opposed to eugenics while progressives were more than happy to impose it on society at large. Also, the lone dissenter in the Bell case was a Catholic Supreme Court justice who was attacked as being a "reactionary" for opposing state mandated eugenics.

    You can't just spout historical ignorance and expect people to believe it.

    So, I ask again: why the obsession with genetic engineering?

  • Tony||

    I assure you when genetic engineering becomes a social issue it will not be because of meddling progressives but wealthy capitalists who want designer children.

  • Just Say'n||

    Progressives are rich white liberals. That is their base.

    So, you they haven't dropped the whole eugenics thing is what you are saying?

  • Just Say'n||

    www.the-american-interest.com/.....s-warning/

    You're either ignorant about what progressivism is or you are being purposely coy

  • Tony||

    What are we talking about? The early Progressive movement that isn't relevant to anything? Bernie bros? Or me, a simple liberal who wants to make society incrementally better--just like everyone else except their ideas aren't as good.

  • Just Say'n||

    "just like everyone else except their ideas aren't as good."

    OK, that was a funny retort. I'll stop

  • ||

    There were *some* conservatives that jumped on the eugenics bandwagon but to try and somehow equate the two like Robby and Dalmia do, is disingenuous.

    I love how progressives don't seem to own up to anything they espouse and then turn around and take others down with them.

    Just another reason why this ideology needs to fuck off and die.

  • Tony||

    It already has. Or do you consider yourself forever tied to the loose thread that connects your philosophy to the past? Are you a Jeffersonian (or whatever) in every way, or are there perhaps some things you'd toss away?

  • Star1988||

    Your beloved Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. PP was all about eliminating "criminals, morons and Negros". Her words.

  • Paper Wasp||

    I've never understood how this is supposed to be a bad thing. I'd actually be cool with this. I'm tired of supporting them, TBH. If more of their mothers choose to abort or use birth control to prevent from having more worthless parasites, that's far better than the alternative.

  • vek||

    1. The problem is women often times breed with exactly the wrong people. They're the most sexually turned on by good looking idiots. This isn't much different from men of course, nobody wants to bang an ugly person. But the stereotypical moron alpha male football player is in fact NOT really good breeding stock for the modern world. 20,000 years ago when we were out hunting mammoths he might have been, but not anymore. The reasonably attractive, reasonably assertive, reasonably intelligent guy with impulse control has been the better mate since the dawn of proper civilization, and monogamy essentially helped even out breeding levels between different groups. Only the super ugly, AND dumb, AND unassertive tended to not breed in those systems, which is for the best. Those guys are largely the incels of today, but the 2nd tier down guys have lost out a lot to the dumb alpha types too. Think all the women you know with baby daddys that are blow it cases. They probably would have married a reasonable 2nd tier guy in 1950. Smart alphas are of course the best of all worlds and never have problems in any instance.

  • vek||

    2. Eugenics is not a bad thing in and of itself. Eugenics IS REAL. It's not pseudo science. It 100% would work, we're no different than any other animal and traits can be bred in or out.

    But coercing people into doing it is the bad part. I don't know if genetic intelligence potential has gone down due to the less intelligent breeding because the Flynn Effect has masked it if it has... BUT many physical ailments are more common now, and I strongly suspect many of these people wouldn't have bred 1000 years ago. Hopefully genetic engineering done right will make humans better than we've ever been, voluntarily of course.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Bingo!!!! We have a winnah! Female mating preferences drive the whole thing. Since the advent of the smart phone and various social media / dating apps, the number of college age female virgins has remained stable, but the college age male virgin pop has doubled. All the play is going to Chad, hence the rise in the incels.

    We'll probably need a few hundred generations of natural selection before most females are sapiosexual (aroused by intelligence).

  • vek||

    Yup. It all makes perfect sense when you think about it. Thank god I've always been decent with the ladies. I'm not a top 1% slayer or anything, but I'm probably in the top 10% at least... And I'm kinda short! If I was 6'1" I probably would do 10 times better.

    Any incels reading this, just remember PERSONALITY counts too. You should obviously not be a big fat lard or whatever, and take a shower once in awhile... But learn to be more assertive and pick up on better interpersonal skills. These things can be learned to a degree. It might not turn you into Brad Pitt, but you'll get laid once in awhile at least!

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Wow!!! Tony has made some sense!! Now, mate that logic with the facts that wombs are scarce and dear, and sperm is cheap and abundant.... What does that tell you about female mating preferences, assortative mating, and male mating success?

  • Yellow Tony||

    Once true immersive VR (Sexbots are shit.) is widely available and is reasonably priced, incels will have a very viable outlet for their frustrations. With that said, it probably won't fix them since their issues are deeper than sex.

  • Tony||

    Exactly. It's about social status more than having an orgasm (which they can do themselves).

  • Yellow Tony||

    I think it's deeper than that. From the stories I've read concerning incels (These were written by anonymous individuals, so they could very well be bullshit, but I don't they were fake.), they typically have a congenital issue (psychological and/or physical) and/or a shitty upbringing. Thus I'm under the assumption that this "issue" of incelibate men is a mental health one, and having them fuck women or find other ways to attain a higher social status is not going to solve a majority of cases.
    Furthermore, there also seems to be an uneven dichotomy within the group: those who want to be normal, and those who've stopped giving a shit. The former is the vocal group one typically hears about when the topic of incels appears; while the latter just wants to be left alone into perpetuity.

  • vek||

    I've not read super deep into it, but basically I would say that they're mostly just the most unattractive, weird, low value people out there. And for whatever additional reasons they seem to not be able to find their equally low value women. Perhaps the 1 notch above them dudes are swooping all the fatties?

    These people have always existed, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are relatively more of them today. But mainly I think it's just easier to be more heard than anything. The short, fat, dumb guy in 1860 who could never manage to score even an ugly wife just kind of plodded along, maybe got a hooker now and again, and then died. He didn't get to have a blog.

    The thing that blows my mind is just HOW lame these people must be. I have some friends that are pretty awful with women, and they've all managed to score a mediocre looking girlfriend now and again. If these guys spend all their time on the internet they should go watch some pick up artist vids or something so they can at least manage to score a chubby chick every year or two!

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And as to why they don't just use prostitutes, they're seeking validational sex, not transactional. They know that the prostitute doesn't value them for themselves, only their money. They want to be valued for themselves, i.e., validated.

  • Ariki||

    God Tony, you really have no understanding of human nature do you?
    The world is completely external to you isn't it?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    All sides need to take a deep breath and not overreact

    Yeah... not gonna happen. EVERYBODY PANIC!

  • Yellow Tony||

    EVERYBODY SHOULD BE A HERMAPHRODITE WITH A LONG ENOUGH DICK TO FUCK THEMSELVES
    THE SURGERY SHOULD BE PERFORMED ON TODDLERS
    NO CIRCUMCISION
    THE JEWS ARE FAULT
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    [backs away slowly, disappearing into a hedge]

  • Yellow Tony||

    Be careful: hedges are one of the most popular rape destinations along with UFOs, vans, and homes.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    What, no visual aid?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    WHAT KIND OF DICKS? FEMININE OR MASCULINE?

  • Yellow Tony||

    MALE HAVE MASCULINE VAGINA
    FEMALE HAVE FEMININE PENIS
    THERE SHOULD BE A SECONDARY VAGINA OF THE APPROPRIATE CORRESPONDING SEX INSTALLED ON THE BACK OF THE KNEE FOR BOTH SEXES
    BALLS ARE MANDATORY FOR BOTH SEXES BUT FEMALES GET FEMININE BALLS WITH A CUTE BOW TIED AROUND THE SACK

  • Ariki||

    HA

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    BACK OF THE KNEE? THIS IS INCONVENIENT IF YOU ARE NOT A GODZILLA

    ADDING IN BALLS TO BOTH GUARANTEE THAT MOST SEX IS NOW GAY AND THAT IS SOMETHING I WON'T STAND FOR IN MY AMERICA

  • Yellow Tony||

    YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN A VAGINA.
    HOW CAN YOU KNOW WHAT'S INCONVENIENT, MOTHERFUCKER?
    GODZILLA IS PEOPLE TOO
    IT'S ONLY GAY IF TWO MASCULINE SACKS TOUCH
    FEMININE SPERM IS INERT
    FUCK YOUR AMERICA

  • vek||

    I approve of the direction this thread went :)

  • Chipper Jonze||

    Do they wobble to and fro? Can you tie them in a knot? Can you tie them in a bow?

  • TGoodchild||

    Tony, I gotta say your posts are making much more sense than usual.

  • StackOfCoins||

    Maybe stop criminalizing sex workers and launching a crusade against them?

  • Eidde||

    Too late, the crusaders' missiles are already on the launching pad, if you know what I mean and I think you do.

  • Lester224||

    "Incel" is a pretty broad term. It's either

    1) People who won't sleep with people approximately as attractive as they are themselves (have inflated view of their own attractiveness).
    2) People who scare off prospective partners (including those on the spectrum who don't realize they are doing this)
    3) People with severe social anxiety who just can't bring themselves to ask

    1) and 2) are the angry ones. Especially 1)

    3) Just need therapy

  • JeremyR||

    1 isn't really true. Women have all the sex they want, but average to below average men often can't find average or below average women to sleep with.

    It's a supply and demand issue. There's just no demand for unattractive guys.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Yep. It doesn't take much Google-fu to look up the (granted unscientific) studies done by websites like OkCupid and the like that show that approximately 80% of the women only find 20% of the men attractive. I do believe its called The Pareto Principle and its got some claim to legitimacy.

    Now, anyone who has paid attention to politics in the last decade and a half cannot help but notice the increasingly shrill outcry from asshole 3rd Wave Feminists (who are strangely allied with Fundie/Social Conservatives) against things like availability of pornography, decriminalizing Prostitution, the coming Sexbot revolution and almost any and all attempts to make sex more available to men (thus upending their power to be gate-keepers). It doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to see that this is creating a serendipitous disaster with men losing both educational and economic status coinciding with the growth of the Nanny-State. You're starting to see the first reaping of the bitter harvest created by social engineering Progtards. What the hell did you think was going to happen to a generation of Men who were (mostly) raised without father figures in their lives, forced to conform to an education system that destroys them and medicated to the point of craziness?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Fight Club?

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    An uptick in violence seems to be the end result of these kinds of things. I mean, sure, correlation does not equal causation, but it does seem to track when you restrict sexual outlets for young men, they get theirs any way they can. Its not just rape you have to worry about.

  • vek||

    I think the best way to think about it is maybe in quintiles or something. Basically most people date at their level or one above or below depending on various factors.

    For the lowest quintile women they may choose to simply ignore the lowest quintile men almost all the time, once in awhile breaking the rule out of desperation. But because women are chased more often they can usually find somebody in their group, or even a notch above to bag, at least for a time. This leaves the lowest quintile men basically nada, except on rare occasion.

    IRL I can't count the number of decent and decent looking guys I've known who date beast women... But I guess their personality/lack of self esteem leaves them with only that on offer.

    As for online dating, it's a weird thing. I've been in relationships for almost 10 years out of the last 12 or so, but tried online stuff for a minute in between my 2 long relationships. I found that I did way worse online than IRL. I have a fairly attractive face, and am a little on the short side, but my main thing is my personality. I punch well above my weight IRL because I'm kind of a loud mouthed, assertive, outgoing kind of guy. But if I had a lame personality, that could take be down 2 notches right there. But the online 80/20 rule really shows how brutal it can be for some who don't have anything that makes up for it.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > Basically most people date at their level or one above or below depending on various factors.

    Not women. Hypergamy demands that there is a floor to a woman's arousal. She might have sex for other reasons, like resources, but the tingles don't come from that kind of sex.

  • vek||

    Sure, by and large. But I've known some women who dated below what I would say their "status" was. They tended to have self esteem issues, or other problems I guess, but it does happen. Obviously the resources with no real attraction thing happens plenty too.

  • Mark22||

    What used to make men attractive to women was money and security. That's what evolution optimized men to provide. Looks were secondary.

    With the welfare state, no fault divorce, child support, etc women can get all the money they need from ugly men via the state and sleep with the pretty ones for fun.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You're on track with Sugar Daddy welfare state, but the idea that evolution made women more attracted to wealth and security than looks was not true in a pre-ag society. Appearance is a very good heuristic for health, and health is super important to child survival. Check out the work of David Buss and Martie Haselton.

  • Mark22||

    Pre-ag societies often have entirely different mate selection strategies. Furthermore, to the degree that women had choices, foraging ability and intelligence may have been more important than looks.

    No matter how mate selection functioned, though, the best strategy was always to match acceptably healthy, secure and wealthy men against fertile and healthy women.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Certainly not Sharia law mystics famous for homobestiality and anthrax. What's wrong with their own Prohibition Party? Why come over here to stink?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms

    Progressive feminists (but I repeat myself) are just as bad when it comes to porn (degrading... increases rape despite all evidence to the contrary), prostitution (human trafficking hysteria) and while they may not be quite as upfront about wanting to restore puritanical norms, that would certainly be one of the "unforeseen consequences" of their policies (along with increased rape, sex workers forced to work for violent pimps instead of websites like backpage, etc. etc.)

  • Tony||

    Porn was at the center of the so-called feminist wars. I think it turned out in porn's favor? Not really sure.

    But there currently is a large-scale effort to demonize porn on the religious right. I know it's always been there, but it keeps popping up in odd places and I feel like they've latched onto it as their new crusade since they lost the last one.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, no, sorry, but you just spouted fantasy here. There is no doubt that progressives are the scolds and censors of our era. That's indisputable. All social conservatives complain about now is being forced to buy contraceptives and fund abortions.

  • Tony||

    You mean they complain about women having the freedom to get abortions. They haven't ever been paying for them against their will. So tell me more about fantasy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually, no. They have been paying for them. Illinois and California have imposed taxpayer funded abortions and California has mandated that all insurance cover abortions. Also, the contraceptive mandate including mandatory coverage for the morning after pill, which would technically be considered abortion.

    Tony, I'm starting to think that you aren't so much as doctrinaire progressive as you are misguided about the world around you. Which makes me think there is hope.

  • Tony||

    US law goes out of its way to keep tax dollars from paying for abortion (which, ftr, is dumb in my opinion since it's a legal and important medical procedure). Social conservatives are not content plugging any leaks where funding does get in, but are for outright abolishing the right (even presumably for their own mistresses, but we'll have to see).

  • Jack Klompus Magic Ink||

    If you think it's so fucking important and must be subsidized, why don't you go to med school and offer them for free? No doubt it would be the only chance a malignant retard like you would ever see live human female genitalia.

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is one of the emasculated looter Luddites that would rather the two of you die of cowpox or Ebola than have the CDC step in with vaccines. Mystical bigot looters like William Jennings Bryan voted for the Comstock Laws and the Communist Manifesto Income tax they so fanboyishly dote on. Never do they offer to help repeal Manifesto Plank 2.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    LMGTFY

    Pick any of the links that come up and dive in. You'll find plenty of recent examples of self described feminists condemning porn. Some who don't of course, but I don't think it's accurate to claim that the intra-feminist debate has been settled one way or the other yet.

  • Tony||

    Seems like a legitimate debate. Obviously the argument begins and ends with "I like porn" for many of us.

    I guess at worst we may have to decide whether we want porn banned to save women from objectification or because Jeebus says so. But I don't think anyone's going to ban porn in this country.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Honestly, even if they banned the commercial production of porn, leaving us just amateur stuff, we'd still have plenty of porn (just without the bad writing). We'd have fewer folks that are making money off it, and few "actors" who are doing it just for the money, but porn would still be around.

    Which is probably the biggest problem with anti-porn crusades is that they entirely dismiss that while some porn is "objectification", there's plenty that isn't.

    And that's before we even talk about gay porn. The "objectification" there is reducing women to being outraged over what happens in front of their salads, and not sexual at all.

  • Mark22||

    Porn is no different from other drugs: it's clear it's harmful, the question is simply whether to prohibit it or merely advocate against it.

  • Just Say'n||

    Actually they're worst. When social conservatives make this suggesting all the "right thinking" people bombard them with dismissive columns and derision. When progressive feminists make this suggestion we get think pieces about how it's a "noble idea, even if misguided" thereby lending credence to their argument.

    Case in point: the article about Spotify. Do we really think that would have been labeled "well intentioned" if it were instigated by the Moral Majority?

  • Drake||

    It's called hypocrisy, dude. Same goes for all the jeebus freaks who defend Trump despite his "sins" even though they'd NEVER give someone like Obama a pass. Why? Tribal loyalties. It's nothing new. It's always been with us and it always will be, whether it's hypocritical, pearl-clutching god freaks sucking Trump dick or hypocritical, so-called "liberated" [except when THEIR side wants it] woke lefties licking feminazi tuna cunt.

    As for the whole 'well-intentioned' thing, I don't like that shit either, so I'm with ya on that. I don't really give a fuck about their intentions, I just want them to fuck off and die. Good intentions don't really mean shit to me, left or right.

  • Mark22||

    Conservatives hated Obama and like Trump for their respective policies. Tribalism had nothing to do with it.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I am confused. Does "incomplete sexual revolution" refer to the observation that while women want lots of sex, they don't want it with autistic boys?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I am confused. Does "incomplete sexual revolution" refer to the observation that while women want lots of sex, they don't want it with autistic boys?

  • Bubba Jones||

    I am confused. Does "incomplete sexual revolution" refer to the observation that while women want lots of sex, they don't want it with autistic boys?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    They especially don't want it with autistic boys who triple post.

  • EscherEnigma||

    While I'm not against legalizing prostitution, I'm not sure that either
    (A) the "incel" problem is actually a problem, or
    (B) the ability to legally pay for sex would be a solution even if "incels" are an actual problem.

    To put it simply, lots of folks have trouble getting sex. Only a small number of such folks have formed an online community, built an identity around it, and cheered on when their members commit acts of terrorism.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Someone compared it to Satanism is the 80s, which is probably apt. It's some weird thing getting more attention than it deserves.

    As for your b) absolutely. It's the same underlying killer behavior, with some random modern group identity.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Hrm... just realized I mucked up (B). Should have read "the ability to legally pay for sex wouldn't be a solution even if "incels" are an actual problem".

    Assuming "incels" are a real problem (citation needed), increasing access to prostitutes won't "fix" the problem. However you want to psycho-analyze 'em, getting laid isn't going to change things.

  • lap83||

    Incels Are the Product of an Incomplete Sexual Revolution

    Unless you're the one volunteering to have sex with them, stfu

  • Brandybuck||

    The real story is that concernatarians now have another demographic to be concerned about. After Columbine the big thing was to be concerned about nerds and asocial folk. This is the same thing, just for "incels".

    Let's all point to the guy who doesn't have many friends, who stands over in the corner during parties, who can't get laid, who doesn't act like us, as the dangerous threat who must be reported to the authorities. So say we all.

  • TGoodchild||

    "All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony."

    You mean, like, 14 people?

  • Orf||

    Very funny -- poor satire.

  • TGoodchild||

    If you believe that social conservatives - whatever those even are - have control over anything, I have an Internet to show you.

  • Yellow Tony||

    I want to take my musky balls and drag them downwards over your tummy, leaving a snail trail of my manly juices as evidence that your body is mine. Baby, I love you.

  • Orf||

    According to libertarians, marriage is an obsolete and inadequate institution. They completely neglect the consideration of having and raising children, which really isn't that important according to these hedonists, who seem to have no concept of a Creator or many other factors in life. Their focus is just the satisfaction of libidinous desires -- so sick and inadequate. This whole article misses so many points it is worthless.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    The article is worthless, but the intersection of your reasons and mine for thinking so is the null set.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > According to libertarians, marriage is an obsolete and inadequate institution.

    Bullshit. This is not a libertarian position. Please stop strawmanning. Some libertarians - like Dalmia - may believe that, but it has NOTHING to do with libertarianism. Insofaras your comment refers to such people, you are absolutely correct, otherwise, it's just slander.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    Well, first off, I'm a in the evolutionary-psychology camp in that I feel that the desire to maximize reproductive opportunity is the basis for just about every *other* human behavior (greed: in order to attract more mates, racism: in order to deny wealth-generating opportunities to whole ethnic classes and to exclude whole sections of the breeding population to a section of competitors - is it any surprise that, in the first half of the 1900's, it was illegal for black *men* to have sex with white *women*, but white *men* having sex with black *women* was just fine?).

    Add to this the best bit of dialogue from the entire Law & Order franchise:
    Accountant: "We're looking for a woman, because women like money"
    Detective: "Men like money, too"
    Accountant: "That's because women like men with money"
    Combine these two postulates to arrive at the following theory: 1) If you solve *income* inequality, you're going to partially solve *sexual* opportunity inequality. 2) If you solve sexual opportunity inequality, you're going to partially solve why income inequality is *painful*.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    In the referenced article "Sexual Redistribution", he mentions another column where the author suggested that being one of the have-nots in the sexual realm can lead to a sense of despair every bit as powerful as lacking money or access to other basic human needs. So, sure, if you're going to try to mitigate human suffering and despair, then there's no reason why you should't look at addressing why some people aren't gettin' any.
    Personally, as a leftie, I have a political motivation for this, since many of the alt-right/nationalist/white-supremacist camp look to be males who aren't seeing a lot of success with women.
    However, you have to think through the consequences. If you take steps to make sure there's a "p*ssy in every bed" along with a "chicken in every pot", then think about what that's going to do to people's motivation to go out there and succeed in the world. If I'm going to get laid no matter what, then why am I going to go bust my hump trying to afford that shiny BMW to roll up to the club with?

  • KH||

    >> ...since many of the alt-right/nationalist/white-supremacist camp look to be males
    >> who aren't seeing a lot of success with women.

    A lot of the wealthy married men I know aren't having much success with women.

    >> If I'm going to get laid no matter what, then why am I going to go bust my hump
    >> trying to afford that shiny BMW to roll up to the club with?

    Busting your hump won't get you laid. Having a safe job will, though.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Alpha fucks, beta bucks.

    Which one are you? (Hint: she wants you to stay in your lane)

  • KH||

    Personal boundaries should be a two-way street. If you use the same standard of need that feminists use when telling men 'You don't need sex,' then much of our economy is unnecessary. So are the taxes people pay to subsidize those parts of the economy, and the hours they have to work to do so.

    I'd much rather have the option of saying 'No, I don't feel like doing that. I have everything I need right now. Make it worth it to me.'

    If someone wants an iPhone, they can pay enough that it can be designed, manufactured and shipped without government subsidies.

    No, I'm not going to subsidize STEM programs for non-essential engineering. Cut them and cut my taxes. No, I'm not going to subsidize logistics infrastructure to move knick-knacks. Privatize the interstate highway system and cut my taxes.

  • texexpatriate||

    Now we have a silly new word with an even sillier social problem: incel, an involuntary celibate. Meanwhile sane people will go on having sex with another and pass the whole problem by.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Ain't it jest lack a Texan to do a pouting incel and not even give the pathetic wretch a reach-around?

  • Petie Cue||

    Women have about a 20% chance of having an orgasm during a first sexual encounter with a new partner, men, about 100%. This isn't rocket surgery, people!

  • MaleMatters||

    Re: "social norms still put the onus on men to approach women and open themselves to rejection."

    The exact cause of most sexual harassment. See:

    "In-depth: How We Waded Into The Sexual Harassment Quagmire -- Taking the Long, Hard Path Out: One Man's View" http://malemattersusa.wordpres.....-quagmire/

    Though some may consider this commentary shocking, it's probably the most thorough analysis you can find of what I believe has for many decades been the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference.

    This difference, supported by both sexes, spawns not only most of the "ordinary" sexual harassment we hear of, but also much of the sexual coercion of women.

    The commentary shows what happens when toxic masculinity meets up with toxic femininity.

  • Pat001||

    Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers.

    Assuming the author is serious and not being sarcastic, what practical solution would "diminish the number of losers?" A requirement that hot babes be forced to date/have sex with at least one unemployed loser incel nerd who lives with his parents for every good looking guy she dates who is gainfully employed, has his own place, likes his mom and drives a Corvette?

  • Nige||

    It's a pity that groups of men who both hate women and want to have sex can't set aside their homophobia and experiment with gay sex together to see if it works for them.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    There's probably something to that. If they are both homosexual and homophobic then they hate themselves before anyone else. Some counseling to help them come to terms with their inner turmoil might go a long way. People who genuinely hate, ultimately only hate themselves, or something. Idk.

  • vek||

    Let's get real here... Even the ugliest, fattest beast woman on earth is 100000000x better looking than the best looking dude. Beating off is a way better option than going gay.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Tell that to my dick, which strongly disagrees.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Many sadz for you.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Many sadz for you.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Many squirrelz for you.

  • vek||

    LOL Well to each his own I suppose! But MY dick agrees VERY strongly with my position.

  • Nige||

    Maybe it's not about looks. Maybe it's about loneliness and making an intimate connection with another human being.

  • markm23||

    Here is a counter-example: Andrea Dworkin. There are pictures on line, but you'd be risking permanent impotence.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    The world is needlessly complicated by all this bullshit. Reason, please don't lend creedence to bullshit newspeak terms like "incel". Take off the gloves and smack them right in the chops with an uppercut of truth:

    Hey loser! If ya "can't" get laid just lower your standards or maybe "sublimate" all that sexual energy into a hobby like crocheting or sculpture. Killing people isn't gonna get your dingus wet, duh!

  • tlapp||

    Incels? May I suggest a date with Rosy Palmer and her 5 sisters? Far better than turning to murder and mayhem.

  • khm001||

    From whose perspective? From the incel's perspective, what's the difference? Both leave you degraded and an outcast. Willing sexual attention, though, can be had by murdering and mayhem. Why do you think Cruz now receives hundreds of letters from women professing love and physical desire for him?

  • Hank Phillips||

    I'm not sure dead or imaginary women really count, and I'm not gonna read that jerk's mail either.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If masturbation is degrading to you, then you're probably doing it wrong.

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Come on, guys, really? Why does anyone need to "figure out ways to offer relief to the losers"?

    If you're really that horny, relief is always at hand (pun intended :-) )

  • Kehvan||

    You can't address "involuntary celibacy" until you also address the social stigma still inherent in homosexuality.

    The fact is, what many in the gay community know, which others outside of it don't, is that a great many of these "incels" also have a lot of gay tells. Call it stereotyping, call it GAYDAR, call it whatever you like, there usually are very subtle clues to a persons sexuality most don't pick up on. Sometimes these clues aren't so subtle like overt mannerisms, but other times the clues are as subtle a persons eyes and how a person looks about a room.

    Elliot Rodger is such a perfect case in point. Watch his "Retribution Video," which you can still find on YouTube, the his overt mannerism are quite reminiscent of a young gay man. In talking to these guys, it really seems most are gay, but in total denial to it. They'd rather blame women and society for they not having that 'je ne sais quoi' that makes even an inarguably unattractive man still attract women, while making a very good looking guy like Elliot Rodger not get many women at all.

    The fact is, irrespective of how much gay people are "accepted" there's still a very confining and limiting and emasculating stigma placed on homosexuality. That results in men who experimented with and enjoyed same sex sexual contact when they were younger, utterly denying it occurred as an adult. As well, this same stigma prevents young men who have a boat load of gay tells from accepting they'd be happier gay.

  • khm001||

    "You can't address "involuntary celibacy" until you also address the social stigma still inherent in homosexuality."

    Incel violence wasn't a problem when degenerates actually had social stigma of properly being labelled degenerates. Social pressure kept these degenerate men in good social standing as productive members of society, instead of callously letting them wallow in nihilistic physical pleasure outside of decent society.

  • Mark22||

    The fact is, what many in the gay community know, which others outside of it don't, is that a great many of these "incels" also have a lot of gay tells.

    They are metrosexuals.

    The fact is, irrespective of how much gay people are "accepted" there's still a very confining and limiting and emasculating stigma placed on homosexuality.

    The stigma is attached to urban, liberal dandies regardless of sexual orientation, and for good reason: they have emasculated themselves. It's not just a turn-off to women, but also to many gay men.

  • vek||

    This could be it with a small number, but in the modern west I HIGHLY DOUBT tons of men who get sexually aroused by other men are completely ignoring their thoughts/feelings and going incel instead.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Seriously?

    We've already been blamed for hurricanes in Florida, tornados in Kansas, earthquakes in Oklahoma, IEDs in Iraq, and now you want to blame us for angry straight men too?

  • khm001||

    "Still, many people were understandably offended by even the hint of a suggestion that men are "owed" sex, or that this particular man was somehow justified in his violence because of some societal failure to keep his sexual drive satiated."

    The ridiculous thing is the same people "understandably offended" by Hanson's suggestion think nothing of feeling like they are "owed" all sorts of economic and financial gooda and are justified in their violence against the fellow citizens of using the state to take from others and give to themselves. For over a decade now, when a women gets uppity talking about redistribution because "we" have all this wealth everyone else can put to good use, I ask her if because between the two of us "we" have a pussy I don't think is being put to good use if "we" can decide how that pussy can be put to good use.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    > between the two of us "we" have a pussy I don't think is being put to good use if "we" can decide how that pussy can be put to good use.

    OH, SNAP! I'm stealing that one!

  • Nige||

    Because of course a woman's genitalia are just another commodity to you which is the ultimate logic of these oh-so-hilarious rape jokes.

  • khm001||

    Also, what Hanson is talking about isn't controversial at all. People just don't put it in as obvious language as Hanson. The reason we have civilization at all is because we devised an institution giving most men regular access to pussy, as well as economic resources to women, even into old age. We call this institution "marriage". Without marriage, we revert back to violent incels and poverty stricken, unfuckable old women.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Far, far, far more important than regular access to pussy is ASSURED PATERNITY. Men will move heaven and earth for their kids.Not so much for someone else's.

  • Mark22||

    All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony.

    There is nothing inherently illiberal about any of those goals as long as people try to realize them through free speech and freedom of association.

    On the other hand, when people try to socialize the cost of libertine lifestyles (abortions, single motherhood, crime, STDs, etc.), that is indeed quite illiberal.

  • Mark22||

    Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers. This will require liberals to start taking the plight of people like the incels seriously, and stop penalizing intellectual mavericks like Hanson who have the nerve speak up on their behalf.

    How about a libertarian magazine takes the libertarian position that it isn't the government's business how people fuck, who they fuck, or who much they fuck?

    Why does Reason keep a little proto-Nazi like Shikha on staff?

  • Hank Phillips||

    I looked because I'd forgotten that incel is newspeak for life-hating impotent mystic. Yawn...

  • Naaman Brown||

    A completed sexual revolution won't help involuntary celibates. Incels are not complete people: they have no mammalian core. Incels, angry young virgin men tormented by puberty and their unrequited sex drive, envy men who women love and despise women who find incels unattractive. They ping women's mate-dar with "Danger! Warning!" Women instinctively shy away from them. They usually have histories of mental illness, lack social instincts, and are unable find, court, woo and seduce girlfriends. Their inner nature is purely reptilian. That is why incels are incapable of making personal connections with women.

    Alek Minassian "The Incel Rebellion has already begun!" and Elliot Rodger have declared war on "Chads and Stacys" loving couples with healthy sex lives based on warmblooded affection. These malcontents find each other on the internet and amp up their sick hatred of Chads and Stacys.

    Incels are reallife versions of the Sons of Adam from Raccoona Sheldon's "The Screwfly Solution" (1977), where space aliens plot to depopulate the earth by turning men against women so the aliens can take Earth without a fight. That story is prophecy! I've seen through the incel guise! We must be prepared to defeat the incel insurrection and to face their space alien overlords. The survival of Humanity on Earth is at stake.
    [/sarcasm]

  • vek||

    WOW

    "Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers."

    Soooo outright just talking up progressivism... WOW. And

    "And it will require conservatives to stop romanticizing an imperfect past and look for viable solutions that don't involve turning back the clock.""

    Sooo going back somewhat more towards a method that produced quantifiably better results for a large portion of the population is always a bad idea because it happened in the past, which OBVIOUSLY makes it bad?

    I used to be a very stereotypical libertarian. Fiscally hardcore, and socially pretty much anything goes... Then I grew up, and also read a lot more research. The fact is women are statistically a lot less happy than they were during the reign of the evil patriarchy. Male happiness is actually almost identical, a few incels at the bottom excluded of course.

    Why? Because women are trying to be bad knockoffs of men in the professional world, something they just can't compete at because they don't have the natural drive to succeed in the business world like men do... Evolution is a bitch! They don't CARE about it as much. Simultaneously they're told they HAVE TO do this, because anything less is not living up to their potential.

  • vek||

    Meanwhile they have a series of unhappy relationships which ultimately end up in them not being happy either, and usually the guy, if he's worth a shit, moves along to something better when it's all over. Eventually they end up an old, fat, childless cat woman. The end!

    This is basically what just happened to me. I broke up with a long term girlfriend who is now past her prime, with very little value on the "sexual market," (she was very cute when we started dating!) and she will end up having her cat, and maybe a few less desirable than me beta male BFs. It didn't play out like this on purpose, because I'm not an asshole, but that's the reality of the situation since we didn't work out. Meanwhile I'm going to go on to date, and hopefully eventually marry and breed with, younger and more attractive women than her. Because I'm a man and I can do that.

    The old system really benefitted women as much as low value men, as the happiness stats prove out. Women are not as productive in the economic sector on average, and they also have a shorter period of time being valuable on the sexual market. It sucks for women, but it's true. Men just have it better biologically. Locking in a spouse really serves women more than anybody. If all men could just dump their wives when they sent the kids off to college without the messy divorce bit the vast majority of men could do a LOT better. And in fact this happens to a lot of men, albeit with getting jacked for half their cash.

  • vek||

    I'm not a line towing SoCon, but there is a lot of value in LEANING TOWARDS some traditional values from a practical standpoint. As a libertarian I don't want any of it to be enshrined in laws, but I have no problem with the culture encouraging good behavior and discouraging the bad.

    One need look no further than happiness stats, average net worth info, crime rates of children, educational level of children, etc etc etc to see that when marriage was more strictly enforced it produced better outcomes for almost all people. Obviously wife beaters and the like she be able to be divorced, as should abusive wives etc but encouraging people to get and stay married produces better societal results BY CREATING better individual results on average.

    The truth that some libertarians can't handle is that MANY people in the world are in fact a little too dumb to manage their own lives well. Libertarians tend to have high IQs, and since they run their shit right, they assume everybody does. But they don't. This is why some basic boundaries need to be set by culture, not the law, to help out our slightly less intelligent brethren.

    The lower classes (low IQ people) have been the most hurt statistically by the dissolution of marriage, look up the stats. Encouraging good behavior through culture is not un-libertarian IMO, although many Cosmotarians seem to think it is, because anything virtuous is somehow evil.

  • vek||

    Incels are the men who get screwed by the current paradigm, but so do most women, including and especially the fatties! Sometimes you can't HAVE IT ALL, you have to settle for something that works well enough. Marriage worked better than THIS current paradigm does. That's by the numbers and by self reported happiness figures... What else could you want/need to conclude it was a "better" overall system? Not to mention that it is also the default system for 99% of cultures that have ever existed on planet earth, which KINDA leads one to think it might be the natural order of things for our species...

    With Gen Z being more conservative across the board than my idiot generation (I'm an older millenial), perhaps things will trend back towards sanity. I don't think we need to go quite as strict as the 1800s or anything, but perhaps the 1950s where you could get divorced, but there was a high social standing cost would work. I guess we'll see where it all goes...

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Spit that truth, Vek!! Have you been to therationalmale.com or dalrock.wordpress.com?

  • vek||

    Haha. I had not ever seen those particular sites before, but just poked around a bit and bookmarked them. I have however done a reasonable amount of reading/video watching on "manosphere" type subjects though.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Funny, I thought progressivism's promise was to eliminate winners and losers and just give everyone a Participation Trophy. It's so hard to keep up.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    "Incels"? Do we really need labels and boxes for every facet of the human condition?

    I'd still be trying to figure out what "cis-male" means if I gave even half a shit.

  • Liberty Maniacs||

    I couldn't agree more.

  • Ardent Thrasher||

    "All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms" .....

    All too many pretending to be social liberals are actually communist Puritans in reality who want to shut down pornography (but shopping all day is allowed.. porn for women in other words - that's ok) and prostitution (lowers the price of pussy for men and that is not allowed).

    Puhlease - let's not pretend that it's social conservatives doing this.

  • BenjaminTheDonkey||

    If prostitution were legalized, no man with a job would be denied sex. However, I suspect the real problem with incels is that they don't want sex to come at the expense of ego validation, they want to be wanted like Hollywood Playboys....and have sex. I'm voluntarily celibate because I'm over humans, but I've talked to incels and suggested calling a girl from backpage or going to Reno to dip your wick, but they want some chick to validate them more than they want sex. You don't go on killing sprees over libido, you spit in your hand and apply some elbow grease to the situation. But it's the sense of lacking worth, of having been insulted by female choosiness that sets off a schmuck.

  • Libertarian Linguist||

    I agree.

  • Libertarian Linguist||

    As a hardline social conservative, I think that premarital sex, pornography, prostitution are very wrong. However, as a libertarian, I don't believe they should be illegal, even though things like incel violence trouble me deeply.

    I found this article very thought-provoking and persuasive. I do think that young men like me are being left behind in the sexual revolution. Social conservatives and liberals alike need to talk about this problem seriously.

  • Liberty Maniacs||

    "Incel" is a misnomer. Anyone self-describing as "incel" is voluntarily becoming unfuckable.

  • Technomad||

    There are a lot of involuntarily celibate people out there---some of them married. (I will leave the cracks about marriage being the surest way to shut down one's sex life for others to make.) And there are a lot of causes.

    Some guys "miss the boat" in high school and/or college---shyness, lack of funds, an all-male environment---and never do manage to "catch up." Others are just poor.

    And, yes, some guys who haven't been laid in too long come across as "creepy." A very wise friend of mine once commented to me, after I'd bent his ear about money: "Technomad, a starving man obsesses about food." Since women do not quantify what "creepy" means, men have no way to correct this. (And nooo, just hitting the gym and improving one's personal hygiene do not help.)

    Too many women also refuse to accept or admit that the male sex drive works differently to theirs, and is less easy to override or ignore. Accepting this would involve admitting that Mommy, their aunties, their sisters, and their girlfriends knew not what they spoke of. And this causes severe cognitive dissonance.

    Finally, I will say that the fortitude displayed by those who do not suffer from involuntary celibacy toward the unhappiness experienced by involuntary celibates is a constant source of inspiration to me.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online