How do we manage the incel epidemic?

[Grenartia]

Wouldn't the Western world be better off if it adopted a fascist system? (minus the sex negative elements)

The western world would be better off if it totally banned fascist advocacy. Change my mind.

[Cekoviu]

Wouldn't the Western world be better off if it adopted a fascist system? (minus the sex negative elements)

No.
That was easy.

[Costa Fierro]

I thought it was the MRA version of political 'lesbianism'.

You thought wrong. However the claim that they're a bunch of misogynists or depend on women for income is also wrong.

[New haven america]

No.

No-fap was started by porn addicts who were trying to cut it out, but then got taken over by pseudo-scientists who believe that porn and fapping are responsible for the destruction of the modern world and themselves, so you must avoid it at all cost and only get off by having sex instead. MGTOW are men who generally tend to be misogynists who choose to completely cut women out of their lives so as to not play into the imbalanced gender privilege system (Where they believe women have it better off), except for the fact that they don't actually Go Their Own Way and instead spend 90% of their time complaining about women on the internet and rely on women for their financial support.

I thought it was the MRA version of political 'lesbianism'.

In order for that to happen the majority of men need to be desired sexually.

They are not, thus they don't have that power.

[Ostroeuropa]

Like the women's groups that talk about misogyny and prejudice against women in several areas including one focused on sex too, also blaming it on inherent biology?

This is peak whataboutism.

Not really. Pointing out that the level of vitriol and anger directed at MGTOWs isn't sincerely due to their stance but is more that they have the temerity to be men who deviate from the demanded expectations of them is valid as a means of dismissing those judgements and frames the situation in an appropriate context.

You may as well act outraged that someone you've declared war on fights back and then whine when they point out you began firing first that this is "Whataboutism". All you've done is throw out a thought terminating cliche.

I thought it was the MRA version of political 'lesbianism'.

In order for that to happen the majority of men need to be desired sexually.

They are not, thus they don't have that power.

The argument is that men are needed by women in other ways and you can deny them these things, moreover, it is argued that men are better off not associating with women for their own sake, not that a sex strike will cause women to change their behavior. (Where it is argued that women will change as a result of MGTOW, it is as a result of a broader male strike.).

This is why so many MGTOW lean to the right, they view the modern feminist state as women using state violence to force men into their gender role and provide for women. (the overwhelming amount of state expenditure goes to women and upkeeping their lifestyles and life decisions, at the expense of mens liberty and productivity.). Opposition to child welfare, alimony, divorce settlements and so on is part and parcel of why they decide not to associate with women.

Without mens money and support for womens lifestyles, women will have to change and begin appreciating mens contribution, or starve. It's a pretty basic master-slave dialectic type of thing. Once the slaves stop producing, the master has a choice;

Convince them to carry on by being less of a prick, starve, or become a slave too. Because womens lifestyles are dependent on mens cooperation, men have the power to stop cooperating and thus cause women to capitulate.

There's also the social thing. Some MGTOWs argue women have a psychological need for validation due to high-in group bias and a sort of collective narcissism, and that if men refuse to provide it, women will basically suffer a prolonged tantrum about it until they get it out of their system (To which the response is, This behavior is precisely why we no longer respect you, nor like you, and yes it is fine to dislike and hate people who have acted the way you have, get over yourselves, your belief that you can behave collectively however you want and that disliking you as a group is automatically off the table has made you awful people), then be forced to change their behavior to receive that validation.

More radical ones bleed over into believing that men simply shouldn't help women at all even if they need it. The"When in a burning building and with a capacity to carry two people, if there's two women and one man, pick up the man and leave the two women to burn." kind of position. This bares resemblance to Shmittian ouitgrouping in terms of;

"We're not saying you're the out-group in that we want to kill you, more in the sense that we'd let you die.".

It's argued that since women are reliant on mens help in this fashion, this would also cause women to capitulate. All that needs to be done is to reject womens demands for special treatment on the grounds of fairness and equality because they don't reciprocate, and to accept that merely because something benefits women and makes their lives better is not an argument men should have to do it without compensation.

All of these are responses to a lack of reciprocation on womens part socially, and none are in and of themselves objectionable, they are merely different evaluations of how to respond to the social problem women have caused.

MGTOW is malcolm X, MRM is MLK.

MGTOW tend to mock the MRM for trying to help men by relying on women doing something against womens interests, and would rather help men by taking matters into their own hands, arguing something akin to mens equality should not rely on womens cooperation since they are not giving it and we cannot force them to give it unless we adopt widespread violence against gynocentrism when it manifests.

[Katganistan]

artificial toys dispensed to all by government on their 16th birthday

You can buy them on your own when you're 21.

[Katganistan]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that anybody has a right to it. Its far more important to permit individuals agency in their sexual partners than it is to remedy an inequitable spread when some potential partners are rejected.

Whether its vital or not seems entirely irrelevant.

Nobody has a right to food either, but starvation is considered a problem. Poverty is considered a problem. Nobody has the right to enjoy their life but depression is considered a problem when it happens to lots of people. If we're in for the long haul, a very big percentage, possibly majority, of the male population will become involuntarily celibate while their female counterparts will reproduce with a small percentage of men. This is a problem, how is it not?

Food is necessary, without it you die.
Shelter and clothes are necessary too -- so that's why poverty is a problem.

No one ever died of a natural, non-human caused death, because they did not have sex.

[Katganistan]

Maybe this whole sexual revolution thing wasn't such a good idea after all.

Seem just fine to me. I don't have to get bartered off to some guy twice my age because he gave my dad a herd of goats.

[Thermodolia]

artificial toys dispensed to all by government on their 16th birthday

You can buy them on your own when you're 21.

21? You can get those when your at least 18 it’s not fucking alcohol

[Ostroeuropa]

Nobody has a right to food either, but starvation is considered a problem. Poverty is considered a problem. Nobody has the right to enjoy their life but depression is considered a problem when it happens to lots of people. If we're in for the long haul, a very big percentage, possibly majority, of the male population will become involuntarily celibate while their female counterparts will reproduce with a small percentage of men. This is a problem, how is it not?

Food is necessary, without it you die.
Shelter and clothes are necessary too -- so that's why poverty is a problem.

No one ever died of a natural, non-human caused death, because they did not have sex.

Nobody ever died of a natural non-human caused death because of solitary confinement either. Yet social interaction is recognized as a basic and fundamental thing people need to be healthy. Sex is on the same spectrum of social interaction. Arguably that's one reason prostitution isn't sufficient, it is not sufficiently fulfilling in social terms because it is a pretense.

This is not to say the solution is to force people to have sex. It is merely to acknowledge that one measure of a society being unhealthy is the number of incels in that population, and it is a sign of social dysfunction suggesting cultural and social reforms may be necessary, same as if people were starved for social interaction we might up and decide to change to facilitate it more.

It also properly casts the incels situation in the appropriate light and brings the vitriolic hostility to them into a better focus for what it is; blaming the ill for their own illness.

It's not a problem that can be solved entirely in all cases, but it is one that can be acknowledged and mitigated with a goal toward minimizing instances.

[Aurevbush]

I'll say this thread has grown much quicker than I thought. But the question is still raised, why not just hire a prostitute?

[Crockerland]

Personality literally does not matter when it comes to attracting a mate. Women love all kinds of guys with all sorts of personalities, hobbies, socioeconomic standings and of all different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, as long as they are attractive. Women are just as physical as men are, and the myth that they have lower sex drives is only because they aren't as interested in as much of the opposite sex. How good a woman says your personality is is just her rationalising her physical attraction to you. Given that this is innate, she shouldn't really be looked at as shallow, but instead shallowness should be looked at neutrally and clinically as the way things really are.

I don't think it's "rationalizing her physical attraction to you", it's more that lot of women talk about "personality" because meeting some standard of physical attractiveness isn't a factor in deciding who to be romantically/sexually intimate with, it's a prerequisite.

If you ask a straight woman what factor is the biggest influence in her choice of romantic partners and she says "personality", that doesn't mean she will date a woman with a good personality over a man with a bad one; As a straight woman, she doesn't even see another woman as a potential mate. She wouldn't see an openly gay man as a potential mate either. And yet, no woman, when asked "what's your favorite thing about your boyfriend", would respond "he's a straight man", even though those are the most important things for a straight woman in a partner.

All primates, with the exception of some prosimians (cute buggers), are social animals to some degree.

It's over for prosiminancels.

If you're a man these combined mean a strong chin (recessed chins are a no-no), a strong mandible with a clearly-defined ramus and jawline (overbites, recessed jaws are a nono), a philtrum that isn't too long or short and that certainly doesn't look too long compared to your chin (that would give you a small chin and jaw), almond-shaped, hooded eyes with low upper eyelid exposure, strong zygos, cheekbones which are prominent and form a dovetail with your jaw to create hollow cheeks, not too big of a forehead, not balding, good skin, not weird lips, not asymmetrical, good under-eye support (bones) to avoid eye bags and also to avoid "doe eyes" (bad eye shape in general).

Not sure what a "philtrum" is, and neither is my spellchecker. And I don't know what a "zygos" is, but I'm sure my governor will try to pass a law to get it aborted soon enough.

That said, an abundance of recessed-chinned, weak-jawed twinks seems like the opposite of a problem to me.

[Gormwood]

Still at "vaginas are evil" huh? Just make women Handmaids and be done with it then.

[Vanhu]

Wasn't aware there was an "epidemic" of people who are finding themselves involuntarily celibate. As for handling the extreme philosophy of "incels", I think increased government surveillance, suppression of extremist views, and medical interventionism is the best course of action for those expressing or supporting violence. Obviously this movement can be very dangerous and I think police agencies are waking up to that. Ultimately, you have to keep the common good in mind.

For those who find themselves in a situation where they strongly desire a partner or relationship, but find themselves unable to do so, definitely they should consider seeking therapy and society should put more resources into mental health support.

I don't think adopting any of the other "proposed solutions" like sex robots, prostitution, or most inhumanely "sex redistribution" are reasonable solutions at all. Robots and prostitutes cannot replace a genuine and consensual relationship (to each their own however). Resorting to any methods that violate human agency in their own choices of sexual partners is barbarism and will create far more problems than it could ever solve.

I know how loneliness and alienation can feel and while I have never identified or been associated with that particular toxic subculture, I sympathize with their pain. At the same time, unfortunately there is no guarantee of getting into a loving relationship, that requires mutual chemistry. You can't force that through dystopian government mandates or by trying to force either sex back "into their place".

I didn't date or fall in love with someone until a few years into adulthood. I can't offer any tips or help in that regards. I am just incredibly lucky to have met this person and fortunately they feel the same way towards me. I'm sorry for the others that have not had the luck that I have so far. There's nothing I did to deserve it. I'm very thankful for my partner, although they sometimes feel inadequate for me, I love them so much all the same. I truly hope others will find someone eventually that can give them the love they crave so much for.

[Cekoviu]

You can buy them on your own when you're 21.

21? You can get those when your at least 18 it’s not fucking alcohol

You should be able to get them earlier tbh, they're not fucking voting or joining an army

[Cekoviu]

Personality literally does not matter when it comes to attracting a mate. Women love all kinds of guys with all sorts of personalities, hobbies, socioeconomic standings and of all different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, as long as they are attractive. Women are just as physical as men are, and the myth that they have lower sex drives is only because they aren't as interested in as much of the opposite sex. How good a woman says your personality is is just her rationalising her physical attraction to you. Given that this is innate, she shouldn't really be looked at as shallow, but instead shallowness should be looked at neutrally and clinically as the way things really are.

I don't think it's "rationalizing her physical attraction to you", it's more that lot of women talk about "personality" because meeting some standard of physical attractiveness isn't a factor in deciding who to be romantically/sexually intimate with, it's a prerequisite.

If you ask a straight woman what factor is the biggest influence in her choice of romantic partners and she says "personality", that doesn't mean she will date a woman with a good personality over a man with a bad one; As a straight woman, she doesn't even see another woman as a potential mate. She wouldn't see an openly gay man as a potential mate either. And yet, no woman, when asked "what's your favorite thing about your boyfriend", would respond "he's a straight man", even though those are the most important things for a straight woman in a partner.

That's not entirely true. Women have demonstrably more malleable sexual orientations [1] [2], even when they are supposedly straight. I don't know if there are scientific sources that I can provide on this one, but I've seen a ton of instances of a 'straight' woman remaining with a MtF partner after the latter reveals her desire to transition as well, which would indicate that being a gynephilic man is not actually the most important quality for a straight woman (and the opposite is likely the case for lesbian women).

[Crockerland]

Why is some people not having sex a problem? The wall of text seems to miss that point out.

Yeah it's not like it's such a fundamental part of human existence that gay men in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, etc. will risk their lives literally every single day to be with their partners or anything.

[Cekoviu]

Why is some people not having sex a problem? The wall of text seems to miss that point out.

Yeah it's not like it's such a fundamental part of human existence that gay men in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, etc. will risk their lives literally every single day to be with their partners or anything.

That's not inherently sexual though.

[Crockerland]

Yeah it's not like it's such a fundamental part of human existence that gay men in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, etc. will risk their lives literally every single day to be with their partners or anything.

That's not inherently sexual though.

Homosexuality, the sexual orientation of being gay, isn't inherently sexual?

[Cekoviu]

That's not inherently sexual though.

Homosexuality, the sexual orientation of being gay, isn't inherently sexual?

Let me phrase this in a more explicit manner.
Risking your life to date someone doesn't mean you're risking your life to have sex with someone.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Food is necessary, without it you die.
Shelter and clothes are necessary too -- so that's why poverty is a problem.

No one ever died of a natural, non-human caused death, because they did not have sex.

Nobody ever died of a natural non-human caused death because of solitary confinement either. Yet social interaction is recognized as a basic and fundamental thing people need to be healthy. Sex is on the same spectrum of social interaction. Arguably that's one reason prostitution isn't sufficient, it is not sufficiently fulfilling in social terms because it is a pretense.

This is not to say the solution is to force people to have sex. It is merely to acknowledge that one measure of a society being unhealthy is the number of incels in that population, and it is a sign of social dysfunction suggesting cultural and social reforms may be necessary, same as if people were starved for social interaction we might up and decide to change to facilitate it more.

It also properly casts the incels situation in the appropriate light and brings the vitriolic hostility to them into a better focus for what it is; blaming the ill for their own illness.

It's not a problem that can be solved entirely in all cases, but it is one that can be acknowledged and mitigated with a goal toward minimizing instances.

This is a pretty good and insightful take. Believe it or not, the position of doing nothing and mocking the socially isolated for retreating from society is a conservative, rather than progressive viewpoint, as it is based on the idea that society cannot be improved, or that it is perfect as it is. Some kind of program to resocialize people would actually be progressive, but even this solution is mocked for the same reasons that conservatives mock welfare for the poor, that is, because of a feeling that everyone should be self sufficient.

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe this whole sexual revolution thing wasn't such a good idea after all.

Seem just fine to me. I don't have to get bartered off to some guy twice my age because he gave my dad a herd of goats.

How many goats?

[Bienenhalde]

Maybe this whole sexual revolution thing wasn't such a good idea after all.

Seem just fine to me. I don't have to get bartered off to some guy twice my age because he gave my dad a herd of goats.

And such a practice would have been considered barbaric in Victorian era western societies. So what exactly is your point?

[Saiwania]

Seem just fine to me. I don't have to get bartered off to some guy twice my age because he gave my dad a herd of goats.

This didn't happen before the 1960s either. I'd think that usually a father will take the daughter's opinion of the suitor as a factor to take into account, if the family wasn't desperate for an increase in wealth or social status that is. A woman could get a divorce later on anyways, if they're unhappy in a marriage.

[Chestaan]

Homosexuality, the sexual orientation of being gay, isn't inherently sexual?

Let me phrase this in a more explicit manner.
Risking your life to date someone doesn't mean you're risking your life to have sex with someone.

I would think that being an incel also isn't inherently sexual. These people would probably love to be in a relationship as well. It's not just a purely lustful proposition.