gender views cause of incel.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another lie, I never defended incel culture, I simply said involuntary celibate stands for incel, and that not all involuntary cebs stand for incel culture.
You validated it by blaming women and victims of rape and sexual assault for being raped and sexually assaulted. You did this by putting it down to men needing sex.

It is inherently dangerous.
In your human perception you believe yourself to be in the right, just like humans typically do.
That is because we are correct and we have the documentation to prove it (and many have been linked).
I started this thread to give men rights to dress in womens clothes and have gender equality. You started this thread to insult and abuse me.
Firstly, I did not start this thread. You did.

Secondly, I have corrected your ridiculous assertions about women and gender equality. You have openly argued against gender inequality when you blamed women for being raped. Gender equality is recognising each individual as human beings. You demoted women to being mere fuck holes who must comply when men apparently "need sex" and blame them for men who force women to have sex or who kill or harm women for not having sex with them..

That is not gender equality. You utterly and completely fail to recognise women as human beings with rights equal to that of men.
I went to that website. They say unfacts and fallacies like this
"Rape is just a way of gaining power – not a way of gaining sexual relief."
Surely rape could be both, a way of gaining power and sexual relief?
Unbelievable. You still persist with this fallacy.

Men who rape do not get "sexual relief". Men who rape use sex as a tool to overpower and remove control from their victims. It is why men who rape have often raped before. It's not the sex that brings them relief. It is the notion of overpowering and dominating the victim that brings them relief. Sex is merely a tool. They get off or get relief by overpowering their victims by using sex. It's not the sex that's bringing them relief. It's everything else connected to the rape.

And then they simply state that "Men who rape are as likely as any other man to be cohabiting or having a significant relationship with a woman."
No citations, they just say it like gospel.
So where are the facts? I'm supposed to believe it just because that website says so? When that same website just litterally posted a fallacy right above it?
A majority of rapes are committed by people known to or are intimate with the victim (ie, spouse, partner, boyfriend, date).

Most sexual assaults occur among people who know each other, typically in some type of actual or potential romantic or sexual relationship (Black et al., 2011)​

The survey is quite comprehensive.

Those are the facts.

So does forcing kids to go to school, but we don't call teachers and the government pedophiles do we?
Why is rape traumatizing? Because it is disgusting.

Why don't take a look at it objectively and clear your mind of built up bias.
You are equating making children go to school with rape?

Do you want to know why rape is traumatising? In detail?

When he first pins you down, when he grinds his penis into you, when he manages to free one of his hands that were holding you down to grope your breasts, shove his fingers into your mouth, when he shush's you to try to stop you from struggling, when he undoes his pants and forces his hands onto your genitals and into them, when he rubs his penis up and down your genitals, when he comments on how he thinks you are liking it because your body will involuntarily respond, when he leans over and breathes your skin as he shoves his penis into you..

Without your consent.

When you lie there and think about fight or flight.. When you debate whether it's better to just let him finish and hope like hell you get out of this alive or try to fight him off and hope like hell that he doesn't become even more violent and you are able to get away..

It's not just "disgust". It is traumatising because you have been denied any rights, any control over your own body, it is traumatising because that person has taken your body without your say or control, without your ability to stop it.

It is traumatising because someone just took your very sense of self from you and spat and shit on it and you have no say in the matter.

In your twisted perception that's how you want to see it.
It is literally what you have said in this thread.

The only one with a twisted perception here is you.

Again, another twisted perception. I was saying that the common way for women to get in the mood for sex is usually when they are in an altered state of mind.
What the fuck?

That is an intention to rape. Your common way of getting women "in the mood for sex" shows an intention to inebriate women with the express intention of raping them. You are suggesting premeditation to rape is normal behaviour.
But go ahead and go on some tangent about how it is rape. It is founded on the fallacy that the sober state of mind is a moral state of mind, and anything that is an altered state of mind is inherently immoral, that is how this frame of mind begins, its akin to prohibitionist fallacy.
What you are pushing is not only immoral, it is also illegal.

Why are you advocating rape as being somehow normal? That drugging women with alcohol or other substances to have sex with them later because you somehow believe that this is how you get women in "the mood for sex", is normal behaviour. What is wrong with you? Please seek help immediately.
 
Again, in your twisted perception. But I said nothing of the sort actually, I was saying that women get in the mood for sex when they are in an altered state of mind. Any reasonable human who was born yesterday knows that buying a woman a drink and getting her in the mood, is completely different from getting her so drunk she can't move, dragging her into a car and date-raping her. But I guess I'm not dealing with common human beings, but people off on another planet somewhere.
You have literally argued for inebriating women so she "gets in the mood" or you believe more receptive of sex (when she otherwise would not have been)..

What is wrong with you?
Has nothing to do with victim shaming or blaming.
Don't you understand that I don't care?
It has everything to do with victim blaming and shaming.

And your lack of empathy has been pretty obvious throughout this thread.
If a feminist woman goes into a home alone with a strange man, and she gets raped, that's her problem. Being a feminist, preaching about how women get raped, obviously she could have injected herself into it and thought maybe she could get raped.
If a feminist woman goes into a house alone with a man, strange or otherwise, and she is raped, it's her rapist's fault and not hers.

Your suggestion that she somehow brought it on herself.. Seriously, you are in dire need of psychological and psychiatric help that this site is not equipped to provide you.
You seem to inject emotional bias again. I do not feel emotional about it. It's like, if a sheep gets eaten by a lion, I do not blame the sheep or victim-blame the sheep, I simply do not care. I simply state the obvious facts: That if you go home alone with a strange man, there is a chance of being raped. I do not say this is morally right or wrong, I simply state, if a sheep walks into the woods, and gets eaten by a lion, there is a chance they can get eaten. Do you understand the difference? I dont have emotional bias, I dont blame or shame the sheep, I do not have animosty towards the sheep, I simply do not care.
You blame the victim and claim you "do not care", you make excuses for rapists, you show a complete lack of empathy for victims, you are incapable of even recognising them as human beings, you justify your obscene ideology with ridiculous examples.. You are a classic psychopath and you are also a very dangerous individual.

Again, if a sheep gets eaten by a lion, I do not really shame or blame the sheep, i simply objectively list the cause and effect of why that it occured.
Firstly, this isn't lions eating sheep. Secondly you continue to shame and blame the victim (refer to your "feminist woman" example above).. Thirdly, looking at something objectively involves looking at the entire thing objectively, which would entail looking and understanding what it is you are looking at, having known and understood the literature. You aren't being objective. You are pulling whatever sociopath type excuses you have for rape and sexual violence, stating them as fact and refusing to acknowledge what years of research has shown about sexual violence. Your sole attempt here has been to justify rape and sexual violence against women as being normal behaviour, you have repeatedly diminished it, you have victim blamed and shamed. You are the typical incel. The only reason you have not offended yet is because you are afraid of the consequences.
You keep perpetuating a society of emotional bias, twisted perceptions, and lack of objective discussion.
One cannot have an objective discussion about anything with you because you are a fucking psychopath.

Multiple people have striven to educate you, to provide you with the correct information. You have refused to acknowledge it, made some horrific claims about rape victims, you have openly blamed victims, you have justified rape and diminished its impact.. Your arguments have been based on emotional bias based solely on how you view women and men and what you deem to be their roles in society and in relationships. You do not get to accuse anyone of having "twisted perceptions" when you have openly argued for raping women as being normal, when you have victim blamed and shamed, when you have normalised violence against women and diminished it to men apparently simply needing sex.
If anything I could say your ideology is dangerous to women. I simply state the obvious, that women should not be suprised if they enter a man's house alone. And then you go on some emotional tirade saying you are empowering women, like I think it is your philosophy which is dangerous to women, its like someone going into a self-defense class and telling the self-defense instructor that war and weapons are evil and dangerous to humanity.
You are simply passing the blame onto the woman. You are incapable of even blaming the rapist.

Your argument is solely to empower the rapist.

Again that seems more up your alley than mine.
We aren't the ones justifying rape. You are.
 
It's all about looks these days.

If a guy is rich and handsome then he can easily get pretty girls to like him but if a guy on the other hand is poor and ugly-looking then it is going to be very difficult for him to get any kind of positive attention from pretty girls.

It's not hard to figure out what turns all women on: it's a man's looks and money which turn them on and I know that and I have proof.
 
If a feminist woman goes into a home alone with a strange man, and she gets raped, that's her problem. Being a feminist, preaching about how women get raped, obviously she could have injected herself into it and thought maybe she could get raped.
Rape is against the law. Being an annoying "feminist" is not (as the semantics are in my mind so mixed up on issues like these.)

I posted this about, Trump, in another thread but it may have been lost in my intended meaning - you can't compare people and civilization to lions and bears for the one crucial fact that people are not lions or bears. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-post-whatever-thread.160989/page-2#post-3530064

Have you ever been so scared to react physically to a man easing his way to a completely dominant position of raping you? Not knowing that if you act and screw up, things could turn out worse and only having seconds to seconds to decide?

That does not sound like a productive society.
 
It's all about looks these days.

If a guy is rich and handsome then he can easily get pretty girls to like him but if a guy on the other hand is poor and ugly-looking then it is going to be very difficult for him to get any kind of positive attention from pretty girls.

It's not hard to figure out what turns all women on: it's a man's looks and money which turn them on and I know that and I have proof.
Do you seriously just hate women?
 
It's all about looks these days.

If a guy is rich and handsome then he can easily get pretty girls to like him but if a guy on the other hand is poor and ugly-looking then it is going to be very difficult for him to get any kind of positive attention from pretty girls.

It's not hard to figure out what turns all women on: it's a man's looks and money which turn them on and I know that and I have proof.
And there's no such thing as shallow men who only care about looks?

Also, looks and success are visual indicators of intelligence and mental well being. Even overweight or ugly guys can project success and attract women if they have something cool going with their lives. Fuck, even Charles Bukowski had groupies.
 

Poor Him: Click to go all night.



It's an old joke: Dude walks into a gay bar, nobody notices. Or those Weiner cartoons↑ I posted; the contrast is even funnier than either of the strips alone. And as to waterslides and disappointment, I don't know whether I'm more confused or worried at the emerging sector of masculinity whereby it is some sort of undue effort to be suffered that one should have to jam their cock down someone's throat with reckless abandon for the sake of feeling better. The idea of some dude sighing and hunching his shoulders in resignation, like, "Fine, if I absolutely have to get off cramming you deep throat like I never remember any guy in history ever wanting to in any movie, joke, or locker room tale, sigh, I guess I can endure this trial", is both ridiculously absurd and easily accessible. And don't get me wrong, in my cohort, desperation is deadly, and pride is boring. But the idea that men somehow have become weary of sticking their dicks in human holes is one of the most insidiously confusing social phenomena I've witnessed. There is a bizarre something occurring within masculine object and identity relations that is really hard to explain because it is so riddled with multivalent and diversely vectored contradiction as to seem impossible, but is easily enough illustrated simply by suggesting the idea of a man or men cultivating self-loathing in order to blame women for hating all men.

Something goes here that ought to be irrelevant, but, to the other, I can't quite explain how superficial demonstrative symptomatic behaviors of insecure and unstable masculinity seem to have become. Seriously, not getting laid has apparently become a masculine identity movement. I start to wonder about "Cat Scratch Fever", or maybe even "9 pm ('Til I Come)", and wonder if someday I'm going to hear some bitter man complaining that she left marks or wanted to fuck all night.

But that's another thing these discussions never really get around to. Sticking their dicks in holes? Sure, but not all intimacy involves fucking. It isn't worth digging up the posts, but something about women not liking sex with men at all; much like identifying incels and their godawful attitudes, the problem here is that men need to learn both how to be intimate, in general, and, more particularly, how to fuck.

It would seem almost absurd to imagine, but this apparently this weariness about sticking bits in holes has actually led some of these men to forget ... er ... no, I'm sorry, I just can't do this. I just ... I mean ... there are some things I just shouldn't have to say. Not me particularly, but anyone. Oh, hey, I got it: What if the problem is that men haven't wearied of sticking dicks in holes as much as—oh, God help them—somehow ... I mean ... I mean, fuck: What if they don't know they have dicks?

No, really, it's in there. I tried to address this earlier in the thread, and it's true I had a run-in with a couple of mgtows a some months back that sort of clued me in to watch for this, and, well ... it's not universal throughout identity masculinism, but there are some really angry men out there who apparently don't know what their dicks are.

i am going to have to read this again once i have loaded my brain up with potasium
every sentence is a page
:)
 
It's all about looks these days.

If a guy is rich and handsome then he can easily get pretty girls to like him but if a guy on the other hand is poor and ugly-looking then it is going to be very difficult for him to get any kind of positive attention from pretty girls.

It's not hard to figure out what turns all women on: it's a man's looks and money which turn them on and I know that and I have proof.
If you are "ugly" then why do you insist on getting pretty girls? Why don't you give some attention to the ugly ones? If you aren't interested in the ugly ones then why should the pretty girls be interested in you?
 
"sexually attracting women"
There is quite a ring of absurdity to the use of the phrase & the infered premise.

which culture ?
which country ?
how many decades ?
has it been normal for men to sexually attract females ?

because if you think your being all modern and such and complaining about the loss of something of a bygone era... your trapped inside a serious mental illness.
as serious as a hard core drug addiction that drives basic behaviour patterns.

india, worlds second largest population
1.5 billion people ?
what has been the basic cultural norm for the last few hundred years ?
arranged marriage !

soo... there goes 1 possible example of "sexually attracting females"

soo... imagining for a moment the term "sexually attracting females" and its terms of applied use.

patriarchal eurocentric white middle class USA male appearing to be the sexual desire of a white middle class eurocentric very attractive female...

i mean really ?
you do realise how foolish you look right ?

the supposition that very attractive white eurocentric females might somehow be kept as slaves and thus to deny them their sexual desire and right to expres it...

"cultural diatribe rhetorical games of reasons why the patriarchal male should not keep themselves
clean, hygienic & socially interesting"

ready set go !
 
do white middle class eurocentric very attractive american females find whining to be a highly desirable sexual attribute from a sexual prospect ?

is that what they sexually lust after ?

lol

unkept surly smelly bad tempered passive aggresive male wonders why all the hottest women are not day dreaming about them as their ideal sexual fantasy...
 
If you are "ugly" then why do you insist on getting pretty girls? Why don't you give some attention to the ugly ones? If you aren't interested in the ugly ones then why should the pretty girls be interested in you?
Because they view women as a status symbol..

Women are objects to these men. A trophy.

Have you never noticed that men like Pluto, gamelord, and co, complain about how women go for looks, while ignoring the fact that they obsess with how women look more than any woman ever has about a guy?
 
Have you never noticed that men like Pluto, gamelord, and co, complain about how women go for looks, while ignoring the fact that they obsess with how women look more than any woman ever has about a guy?
narcissism ?
is this a Gender programmed bias of the self created by parenting & society as they go through puberty ?
a male narcissistic developmental psychopathic dissasociative dysfunction ?

it reminds me of a condition i see in children around early puberty where they obses over having a oppostie gender sexualised partner to model the power & autonomy of their parental role models they are being programmed and controlled by.
Typically the parents are are heavily gender stereo typing and usualy involves a mixed(blended?) family situation where there is signifigant emotional disfunction by the male having dissasociative interaction with the child. parents are typically late 20's to early 30's and pre-occupied with their own Egos
it twists the mind of the child as they seek to model independance as a form of personality individuation.

i find it oh so sad to see, the breaking of the mind of a child.
its quite common.
 
Last edited:
Women are objects to these men. A trophy.

Have you never noticed that men like Pluto, gamelord, and co, complain about how women go for looks, while ignoring the fact that they obsess with how women look more than any woman ever has about a guy?

You are simply wrong here in my opinion. Women many times also obsess about a guy's looks and most women will definitely not date a very ugly-looking guy even when they say they would.

Looks are important to both men and women when it comes to who is attractive and who is not.

It's just human biology in my opinion. We all want a good-looking partner because good looks signifies good health and good health is important if you want to carry on your genes so your offspring will have an advantage over others.

It's just evolution at work in my opinion. It's just basic human biology in my opinion.
 

Have you never noticed that men like Pluto, gamelord, and co, complain about how women go for looks, while ignoring the fact that they obsess with how women look more than any woman ever has about a guy?

There are a couple words that go here, and I'm never anxious to say them because, well, then I have to explain them, and, I don't know, I mean, you're not exactly unaware of the notion, nor the question of how much effort is appropriate trying to explain rape envy in a room historically incapable of rationally countenancing the finer nuances of what traditional articles of faith require be blatantly invisible, and that latter is the problem, like trying to figure out if I want to plot a course to sail past Meagher on the way to Dixon and, well, yeah, even Leyonhjelm, because it's all part of the same thing, and if I'm twitching at a post↗ from a few years ago, well, none of us really want to read it again, though it does also refer to another post↗ from the same old thread, and in both of those we are right back to those two words that, damn it, I went and said, anyway, and it is so not going to be a fantastic voyage↱.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top