Incels must undermine this feminist talking-point re Incels

[Deleted member 36776]

You may think you are just lol trolling with your suggestions about "government provided girlfriends" or "sex redistribution" but feminists will run with that language to paint incels as unreasonable and crazy. Of course, no one is asking for the government to do anything -- in fact, the demand is for governments to do less and simply get out of the way of the natural practice of men paying for sex, something our species has done probably since it was homo erectus if not before. "Her body, her choice", right? Then let her also have the right to work as a real prostitute.

No, incels will not find the validation they are looking for from a prostitute, but open and legal prostitution is good for Incel-Kind because it will reduce male thirst and lower the socio-sexual status of the Becky's whose ego has been inflated by the current out of whack sexual marketplace.

Re my point about feminists -- this what "feminist scholar" Amia Srinivasan is saying in her new widely reviewed book "The Right to Sex."

Suppose your child came home from primary school and told you that the other children share their sandwiches with each other, but not with her. … We wouldn’t think it coercive were the teacher to encourage the other students to share with your daughter, or were they to institute an equal sharing policy. But a state that made analogous interventions in the sexual preference and practices of its citizens—that encouraged us to “share” sex equally—would probably be thought grossly authoritarian. …

giving sex-less men money to spend on prostitutes, or encouraging traditional norms of … “enforced monogamy.” The irony is that these proposals, like rape, are also coercive. Women sell sex, on the whole, because they need money; to give sex-less men money with which to pay for sex presupposes that there are women who need to sell sex to live.

This is so fucking dishonest. The state is already intervening in the sexual marketplace by regulating prostitution. Banning the practice, placing sharp limitations on it, regulating it excessively, etc -- THESE ARE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS INTO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS you daft cunt. And feminists like you approve of this because this intervention artificially boosts your own Becky-smv status.

 

[bigantennaemay1]

Feminists will take anything to paint us in a bad light. The way you've framed this is that we are the cause for our treatment, and our treatment by others is the effect. But this is not the case. They hate us, and if we don't provide the fuel for their fire, they will make some of their own. It matters not what we say or don't say, because what we say on this forum is not the cause.

 

[OwlGod]

you write a lot but you're not that smart.
,,muh we shouldn't say x,y,z because they'll use against us to portray us as insane and invalid", fuck off, this is a fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi.

 

[Deleted member 36776]

you write a lot but you're not that smart.
,,muh we shouldn't say x,y,z because they'll use against us to portray us as insane and invalid", fuck off, this is a fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi.

oh okay you have no responsibility to watch your rhetoric it's all just lolz

 

[WhoreCel95]

You may think you are just lol trolling with your suggestions about "government provided girlfriends" or "sex redistribution" but feminists will run with that language to paint incels as unreasonable and crazy. Of course, no one is asking for the government to do anything -- in fact, the demand is for governments to do less and simply get out of the way of the natural practice of men paying for sex, something our species has done probably since it was homo erectus if not before. "Her body, her choice", right? Then let her also have the right to work as a real prostitute.

No, incels will not find the validation they are looking for from a prostitute, but open and legal prostitution is good for Incel-Kind because it will reduce male thirst and lower the socio-sexual status of the Becky's whose ego has been inflated by the current out of whack sexual marketplace.

Re my point about feminists -- this what "feminist scholar" Amia Srinivasan is saying in her new widely reviewed book "The Right to Sex."




This is so fucking dishonest. The state is already intervening in the sexual marketplace by regulating prostitution. Banning the practice, placing sharp limitations on it, regulating it excessively, etc -- THESE ARE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS INTO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF INDIVIDUALS you daft cunt. And feminists like you approve of this because this intervention artificially boosts your own Becky-smv status.

the sharing sandwiches and sharing sex analogy is a decent one though, makes sense in terms of fairness