Incel Feminism

I’d like to rehearse my theories that have allowed me to be both an incel and a feminist. First off I think there are three reasons why incels generally are anti-feminism. The first is the notion that feminism brought about female sexual liberation that allows women to hook up with attractive men, producing “hypergamy” where a relatively small number of attractive men get all the sex and a relatively large number of men get no sex. The second is the notion of the “cuck carousel”, based on the idea in the previous sentence, where women systematically have sex with Chads (attractive men who monopolize all the sex) one after the other (i.e. serial short term monogamy) in a “carousel” fashion before they settle down (marry) a “beta male” who is less attractive than a Chad but is a good provider (of money, love, etc), use him for his resources, cheat on him with another Chad, divorce him taking then take half his stuff, and then collect alimony or child support checks from him for the rest of his life (while not having sex with him anymore). The third reason is mere sexual frustration, where an incel (let’s just say an unattractive and socially inept male) wants sex with a “Stacy” (an arousing, sexually attractive female) but he can’t get it and he lacks an appropriate outlet for his sexual frustration, so he takes it out on women (for example by supporting strict dress codes that make women less arousing or less sexually frustrating to men, or even by taking that a step further and supporting something like Sharia where men get all the power and women have to wear Burqas). I will go into these three notions in more detail and explain how I make peace with them as a feminist incel (i.e. a “soi boy”).

First, the hypergamy notion. I do not believe that feminism and women’s sexual liberation is the cause of a relatively small number of attractive and socially adept men to getting a disproportionate number of sexual partners. In practice I think Casanovas existed even before feminism and women’s sexual liberation and that it’s not a cause and effect relationship. Is these a small minority of men who have sex with an obscene number of women? Yes, according to this chart and this chart, while the vast majority of men have less than ten sexual partners in their life, a small but non-significant minority of men have more than fifty. I personally have met one such young man. He was a tall, attractive looking, socially adept, frequent drinker, incapable of falling in love, who hired prostitutes and sexually objectified pretty much every woman who we encountered behind their back but acted charming to their faces. His go-to move was getting women’s numbers and asking them if they wanted a drink. He told me that he was in the triple digits, got chlamydia, and had a pregnancy scare. I had no reason not to believe him. Do such men exist? Yes. Do I respect them and look up to them? No. That guy in particular had this one issue where he couldn’t get over his abusive ex who he claimed was the only woman who he ever loved but who left him. I sometimes wondered if he had sex with so many women in order to fill the void. In practice the “hypergamy” theory is a little warped - these triple digit men are relatively rare and the vast majority of men, even if they are physically attractive, eventually settle into a state of at least semi-monogamy where they have sex with the same person again and again and lose sexual interest in other people. It’s unusual even for physically attractive men to be up in the triple digits and it’s not like promiscuous “triple digit men” can have sixty simultaneous wives like a warlord in a warlord in Uganda would. Like the women who this guy has drunk hookups with aren’t his exclusive property - they are still on Tinder and probably date or hook up with other men, and they’re not really in a relationship so I would expect these “friends with benefits” relationships to drift apart over time. Basically yes there are man-hores out there but they don’t really have a monopoly over women in a feminist society the way a warlord in Uganda would. And yes, there are physically attractive men (let’s call them “Chads”) but there is a difference between a physically attractive man who has an above average total number of sexual partners in his life (let’s say more than 10) versus a triple digit man-hore who is trying to fill his sadness whole with sex because he is unable to love. Although I do want to be a physically attractive man, I don’t actually want to be a man-hore and man-hores don’t actually have a monopoly over women the way a Ugandan warlord does in a society where 90% of men have no access to any woman because 10% of men own all the women as their exclusive property. Past a certain age virginity becomes relatively rare even in late-blooming males - the number of virgins “drops below 5 percent for both male and female virgins aged 25 to 29 and goes as low as 0.3 percent for virgins aged 40 to 44.” [source]

Some incels have this fantasy of going back to a pre-feminism, pre-women’s liberation society where there is no female promiscuity and each individual woman is married to one man, having sex with him and only him, resulting in a world where no man is without sex. First off I don’t think this world ever existed and second off even if it did exist it’s not possible to go back to this imaginary idealized past. That being said, if you look at the website for the incel political party, there is this point which says that if they come into power they will “pay femcels [female incels] and incels [male incels] to date each other” so that there will be “a chicken in every pot and a thot on every cock”. Below this point is a picture of one man and one woman having sex, so I believe “a thot on every cock” refers to the belief that this will result in no man being without sex because there are an equal number of men and women and each woman will be exclusively dating and having sex with one man. While I do think that in a perfect world there would be neither man-hores who are incapable of love nor woman-hores who are trying to fill their daddy-issue ridden sadness wholes with dick, I don’t think it’s possible to legislate into existence “a thot on every cock”.

An alternate idea for legislating into existence “a thot on every cock” is to impose a modified form of Sharia law without polygyny. For example, in the Qu’ran, it says “the woman and the man guilty of zināʾ (for fornication or adultery),- flog each of them with a hundred stripes” and in the Hadith it says “when an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female, they should receive one hundred lashes and banishment for one year. And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.” This would deter sex outside of marriage and in combination with a ban on polygyny result in “a thot on every cock”. I personally do not want to live in a place with this kind of law and I do not believe that its implementation in the United States would ever pass. Rationally I do expect it would deter promiscuity, though.

Now on to the “cuck carousel” where women systematically have sex with Chads (attractive men who monopolize all the sex) one after the other (i.e. serial short term monogamy) in a “carousel” fashion before they settle down (marry) a “beta male” who is less attractive than a Chad but is a good provider (of money, love, etc), use him for his resources, cheat on (i.e. cuck) him with another Chad, divorce him taking half his stuff, and then collect alimony or child support checks from him for the rest of his life (while not having sex with him anymore). While some men might experience this with the woman who divorced him, I think that refusing to date due to an expectation that this will happen is a form of catastrophizing. Prenuptual and postnuptual agreements were invented for a reason. In addition the notion of that physically attractive “triple digit” men monopolizes all the sex is exaggerated and blown out of proportion and I think it’s a lie that “women are incapable of love” (although some incels believe this). Yes, some men have bad breakups and divorces and sure hores (i.e. women who don’t want to have sex with men except to get money from them) exist, but the narrative is blown out of proportion. Also gold diggers (i.e. women who only date, engage in a relationship with, and marry) a man to get his money are cunts and they shouldn’t receive alimony checks. I guess there is some truth to the “cuck carousel” narrative for some men, like a man who loved and married a gold digger who only wanted to be with him because he bought her expensive stuff and then divorced him, taking his kid, half his stuff, and a lifetime worth of child support checks from him (sucks to be that guy), but hopefully you won’t be that guy. Don’t be a sucker, draft a prenup, and don’t let the possibility of that happening motivate you to be a volcel (voluntary celibate) or MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way). I’ll just leave it at that.

Third, sexual frustration. I get it. Last week I was at the gym with a friend and there was this super hot chick in spandex (let’s call her “Stacy”) working out. I got a semi. It was frustrating. I honestly wished that she toned it down a bit because I felt sexually frustrated. I wouldn’t go so far as to want to impose Sharia law and make women wear loose fitting black Barqas (which are actually kind of creepy in real life), but if I could not get an erection at the gym because of Stacy that would be super cool. Like I get that some women just find it comfortable and want to look that way, but they will never touch my penis so fuck them. I would love it if I were able to get these hot “Stacy” women to do that because frankly I get horny, but they won’t so fuck them.

The previous sentence reminds me of an Aesop’s fable called “The Fox and the Grapes”. In the story there is a fox who looks up at a tree and sees some delicious grapes. He wants the grapes but can’t reach them because he is too short and can’t climb trees, so he gets pissed off and basically says “fuck you, grapes” and walks away. Incels are kind of like the fox in that story and “Stacys” as incels refer to them are like the grapes. The hot chick at the gym in the previous paragraph was a “Stacy” and I totally get it, but there’s a reason that masturbation exists. I mean yeah, I did know a hot chick who went upstairs and had sex with a guy who she met at the gym of a hotel, that guy wasn’t me, it would be super cool if that guy were me, and if I were really attractive and had social skills that guy could be me, but that guy is not me. If I tried something like that I would get rejected or a totally inappropriate and socially awkward sentence like “would you touch my penis?” would come out of my mouth and I would get kicked out of the gym for sexual harassment. That’s kind of how it is for incels, and I get it. Makes me wish I were “Chad”.

That’s my shtick. In short the hypergamy notion is exaggerated, the cuck carousel is exaggerated, and the sexual frustration (although annoying) is something that I can get over. I get the incel plight, but I still identify as a feminist incel because women are people too, the incel party will never win an election, and I don’t want to live under Sharia law.

Here’s a good thread about why f-oids being used s-luts is bad, especially for incels.

I’m skeptical about the study claiming promiscuity decreases a woman’s ability to pair bond. It’s confusing causation with correlation.

I think it’s simply that women who are less interested in long term relationships are more likely to be promiscuous whereas a lot of women who have a relationship as important to their values are going to get engaged and married at a young age.

Obviously, a guy doesn’t want to marry a loose woman, but what’s stopping a woman from lying? I’m not a fan of Rollo Tomassi, but this article pretty much nails it (no pun intended)

A f-oid can’t lie to a black-pilled man because we already know all western f-oids over the age 20 have been with dozens of chads. You have to be low iq to not tell when a s-lut is lying.

Ok so after this long text, I came to the conclusion that women sexually frustrate you but you want to defend their right to sexually frustrate you because you c ope with “masturbation”.

Why not just become a humanist instead of a feminist. Feminist kinda sounds like a sexist term that only benefits females.

Good one dude.

See what you think in another 5 years of this.

I dislike feminism because it’s a female supremacy movement that further marginalizes men (who are already disadvantaged to begin with). Feminism has nothing to do with equality. Being against feminism doesn’t mean you hate women.

You also seem to be strawmanning incels by assuming that they all want some sort of Sharia law or neo-traditionalism. However, both of those are gynocentric ideologies so I don’t think women would even be hurt by those. At least not more then men. Sharia harms men and women from a top-down authoritarian manner, but women still are treated better.

I do resent women for flaunting their sexuality, but this is my own issue. Either way, I don’t believe that feminism is responsible for women’s fashion any more than their made-up notion of ‘Patriarchy’.

I was in the feminism club in college and it literally was just people who believed that women as people are equal to men. Like they weren’t these crazy “I hate men” chicks. You might as well call legit feminism “humanism” because it’s not just about women. In practice the ones who are like “women only” are cunts.

Either be a humanist or feminist. But accept that feminists are really NOT about equality.

Does this look like it’s f**king about equality to you?

1 Like

Most people believe this and most people aren’t feminists.

Even if it’s true about your club, there are feminists at the top of the organizations making things worse for men. Like the false rape statistics.

I differentiate between feminists and bitchy cunts. I don’t consider bitchy cunts to be feminists. No one in my college’s feminism club was a bitchy cunt and none of them hated men. Some bitchy cunts claim to be feminists but if they hate all men I don’t consider them to be feminists. That’s not what feminism is about. Feminism is about equality as people.

@G-Flake This is the kind of stuff true feminism is about:

Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 12.44.45 AM

This was basically the feminist’s attempted amendment to the constitution:

Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 12.45.06 AM

Video:

then join HUMANISM if you want HUMAN equality!!!