In this thread I'd like to see your opinion on this description of these two labels many attach to themselves. Why should these labels even be explained, as they should be self-evident? Simply they need more nuance.
The term "incel" as we all know simply describes a person who is willing but unable to partake in sexual activity for reason(s) outside their control. As this definition goes it could include anyone, even females. Knowing reality we can see that this label usually only applies to men, so we could change "person" to "man" to better fit the usual profile. Following this what would count as sexual activity?
Paying an escort and having sex with her, many of us here don't consider as "ascending". Following this would rape count? I think most here would agree that it would not. I like to describe actual "sexual activity" as consensual penetrative sex without the use of contraceptives with an alive biological female who is physically attracted to you. I want to focus on the "physically attracted to you" part specifically.
We all have heard about "sub8 law" and "80/20 rule." Both of these imply that large swaths of the male population are doomed to inceldom at no fault of their own. These observations are indeed correct; in the sense that females in general find only a tiny percentage of men attractive. Additionally to this we can go outside and see that the average guy in a relationship is no-where near the attractiveness threshold or we could simply see that math wouldn't allow all females to be in relationships with such a tiny percentage of men?
So what gives? Are these harsh truths of the world, not actually true? Well simply saying I believe that the term "incel" is too simplistic to describe this. Firstly we need to understand that the difference between a guy outside a relationship and a guy in a relationship is much less significant than the difference between the guy in a relationship and a guy to whom females are truly attracted to. Thus I call such men incels, despite them being in relationships, as they fail to fulfill the last criteria of proper sexual activity.
Such men are usually experiencing either disinterested sex that could be called "assisted masturbation" to full-on dead bedrooms. These situations are not to be envied though, as these men despite being in a relationship are miserable - a product of blackpill denial. Continuing with this, if they make the grave mistake of committing to a marriage without any legal contracts before hand they are doomed to loose everything. Thus it is clear that indeed most men are incels.
So what about the term "trucel" - a true incel. It could be used to describe men that are either too ugly or mentally ill even to partake in these fake relationships described beforehand.
The term "incel" as we all know simply describes a person who is willing but unable to partake in sexual activity for reason(s) outside their control. As this definition goes it could include anyone, even females. Knowing reality we can see that this label usually only applies to men, so we could change "person" to "man" to better fit the usual profile. Following this what would count as sexual activity?
Paying an escort and having sex with her, many of us here don't consider as "ascending". Following this would rape count? I think most here would agree that it would not. I like to describe actual "sexual activity" as consensual penetrative sex without the use of contraceptives with an alive biological female who is physically attracted to you. I want to focus on the "physically attracted to you" part specifically.
We all have heard about "sub8 law" and "80/20 rule." Both of these imply that large swaths of the male population are doomed to inceldom at no fault of their own. These observations are indeed correct; in the sense that females in general find only a tiny percentage of men attractive. Additionally to this we can go outside and see that the average guy in a relationship is no-where near the attractiveness threshold or we could simply see that math wouldn't allow all females to be in relationships with such a tiny percentage of men?
So what gives? Are these harsh truths of the world, not actually true? Well simply saying I believe that the term "incel" is too simplistic to describe this. Firstly we need to understand that the difference between a guy outside a relationship and a guy in a relationship is much less significant than the difference between the guy in a relationship and a guy to whom females are truly attracted to. Thus I call such men incels, despite them being in relationships, as they fail to fulfill the last criteria of proper sexual activity.
Such men are usually experiencing either disinterested sex that could be called "assisted masturbation" to full-on dead bedrooms. These situations are not to be envied though, as these men despite being in a relationship are miserable - a product of blackpill denial. Continuing with this, if they make the grave mistake of committing to a marriage without any legal contracts before hand they are doomed to loose everything. Thus it is clear that indeed most men are incels.
So what about the term "trucel" - a true incel. It could be used to describe men that are either too ugly or mentally ill even to partake in these fake relationships described beforehand.
