Discussion THAT HE WOULD ENJOY: the problem with THWE definitions for inceldom

[Sheogorath]

Volcel = could have sex with women that he would enjoy, but decided not to, normally for religious reasons
Incel = could not have sex with women that he would enjoy

If some guy only enjoys sex w/ 10/10 gigastacies because his standards are impossibly high, and is refusing sex with 9/10 rank women, I guess he's technically incel, but he's a very different kind of incel than the guy who would enjoy sex with women 2/10 or higher and only rejects sex with rank 1/10 women.

One elephant in the room of the whole truecel/fakecel thing is we seem to accept some level of "standards matter" yet there's no consensus on how far they can matter.

It's especially odd since standardscel mentalceldom is often a mix of genuine disgust and mere cope like "I'll set the bar much higher than I actually need to based on who would reciprocate"

 

[FrothySolutions]

No no no no no. Now we're getting too privileged for our own good. "That he would enjoy." Take that up with the mods, see where it gets you.

 

[Sheogorath]

Take what up? I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here. I don't think watcher broke any rules by saying this.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

incel=khhv
chad slayer=kissless virgin who got his dick sucked but didn't even cum

 

[BITG]

Only standards are no landwhales or trannies. That’s pretty much universally accepted, other than cucks. Incel >>>>>>> cuck, as we all know.

 

[Deleted member 17997]

Only standards are no landwhales or trannies. That’s pretty much universally accepted, other than cucks. Incel >>>>>>> cuck, as we all know.

@Napoleon de Geso thoughts?

 

[hearmeout]

Incel = cant fuck a bitch at his looksmatch -3 points

 

[Sheogorath]

Incel = cant fuck a bitch at his looksmatch -3 points

why three? seems abitrary

 

[Personalityinkwell]

why three? seems abitrary

everything is arbitrary on this site

 

[Uglyme]

If no foid, ugly or attractive, wants to be with you even if you try hard, you're an incel.

 

[Sheogorath]

If no foid, ugly or attractive, wants to be with you even if you try hard, you're an incel.

How hard is hard though? How many of us have sought out the gutters of the worst cities in the world to find the ugliest and most desperate?

 

[mNFwTJ3wz9]

Incel = cant fuck a bitch at his looksmatch -3 points

I'm a 3, but I wouldn't go lower than 1.

 

[Napoleon de Jizzbal]

This kind of simp gatekeeping is denying men to have right to choose (even if that right just theoretical), and puting femoids on pedestal, as only they can define man's inceldom status

 

[OutsideTheBox]

If some guy only enjoys sex w/ 10/10 gigastacies because his standards are impossibly high, and is refusing sex with 9/10 rank women, I guess he's technically incel, but he's a very different kind of incel than the guy who would enjoy sex with women 2/10 or higher and only rejects sex with rank 1/10 women.

One elephant in the room of the whole truecel/fakecel thing is we seem to accept some level of "standards matter" yet there's no consensus on how far they can matter.

It's especially odd since standardscel mentalceldom is often a mix of genuine disgust and mere cope like "I'll set the bar much higher than I actually need to based on who would reciprocate"

I'm generally not a gatekeeper but, I'm not a fool either. If he's not willing to mess with anything under a 9/10 he probably does just have high standards, if she is his looks match then he damn sure isn't incel, he's chad. And anyone stupid enough to be an incel and holding out for stacy is just plain stupid. In a day and age where most men struggle to even get a woman whose only 1 notch BELOW his looks match, these jokers really think they are gonna hit the powerball and land a stacy? I want some of w/e they are smoking.

Most men can be attracted to anything but the absolute bottom 5% of the barrel (ie fatties, deformities, grannies, etc) and some will even do that... Dude I see chadlites with cellulite queens all the damn time..... It's literally a meme among black men and redneck white men (poor, lower class men of average genetics) to have to date down to land whales. No man should ever sink that low unless he's a fattie or something on that level himself.

 

[BlkPillPres]

If some guy only enjoys sex w/ 10/10 gigastacies because his standards are impossibly high, and is refusing sex with 9/10 rank women, I guess he's technically incel

Complete bullshit, obvious contradiction, any guy who can afford to refuse a 9 does not have incel tier looks, inceldom is related to attractiveness not just sex, else every fucking woman by your logic can claim incel if she just chooses not to fuck the men offering

Its like you're saying a 10/10 male model can be incel if he just rejects all the 9/10's that keep approaching him and he only wants 10's, what's the point of this thread dude you know it makes no sense

 

[Sheogorath]

This kind of simp gatekeeping is denying men to have right to choose (even if that right just theoretical),
and puting femoids on pedestal, as only they can define man's inceldom status

Agreed.

At the same time I understand this dilemma:

There are many incels willing to fuck (but who would be refused by) foids who wold be willing to fuck other incels that aren't interested in said foids.

That obviously breeds animosity.

I'm generally not a gatekeeper but, I'm not a fool either.
If he's not willing to mess with anything under a 9/10 he probably does just have high standards,

Obviously the "10/10 only" example is given to demonstrate a point, but I wonder as we begin to count back from there approaching zero standards (1/10 allowed) at what midpoint can we stop and accept?

if she is his looks match then he damn sure isn't incel, he's chad.

I'm not sure what you mean by this: if 9/10 chad only wants 10/10 gigastacy but 10/10 gigastacy only wants 10/10 gigachad, then technically chad is an incel, just the incel we are annoyed with ("just fuck your looksmatch or less bro") who gets the least sympathy.

And anyone stupid enough to be an incel and holding out for stacy is just plain stupid.

I'm talking about someone hypothetically incapable of non-stacy attraction. The difference between "10 is ideal" and "only 10 can get it up".

I don't know how often guys actually get THAT picky. TBH the idea of rating women actually gets very confusing to me.

In a day and age where most men struggle to even get a woman whose only 1 notch BELOW his looks match, these jokers really think they are gonna hit the powerball and land a stacy? I want some of w/e they are smoking.

Again, difference between "I expect to get this" and "I need to get this".

Incels for example, don't necessarily expect to get any foid, yet NEED to have a foid to get off.

It's literally a meme among black men and redneck white men (poor, lower class men of average genetics) to have to date down to land whales. No man should ever sink that low unless he's a fattie or something on that level himself.

Maybe even fatties shouldn't sink that low, superobese males/females should perhaps be celibate until they drop the weight. Use it as motivation.

We should make sex to/by anyone over 500 pounds rape.

Complete bullshit, obvious contradiction,
any guy who can afford to refuse a 9 does not have incel tier looks,

A tier whose parameters you will dictate?

inceldom is related to attractiveness not just sex,
else every fucking woman by your logic can claim incel if she just chooses not to fuck the men offering

Yes, women are indeed incel IN RESPECT TO any gigachad who has or would reject them.

Just as they are volcel IN RESPECT TO all the males she refuses.

What I'm getting at here is it doesn't have to be an either/or. I don't think we can really define these as independent labels/nouns with specific meaning using just the word. We'd need clarifying parameters.

Its like you're saying a 10/10 male model can be incel if he just rejects all the 9/10's

The apostrophe wants to go left bro.

that keep approaching him and he only wants 10's, what's the point of this thread dude you know it makes no sense

That is exactly what I'm saying. The point is that if we allow for ANY standards we must allow for ALL standards.

There is no clear "default

 

[BlkPillPres]

There is no clear "default

Yes there is, what you're saying is ridiculous, the most obvious criteria for default being "its an actual woman", or are you now going to argue - "Since you won't fuck a transfaggot that means Chad can reject 9's and be incel"

 

[Sheogorath]

Yes there is, what you're saying is ridiculous, the most obvious criteria for default being "its an actual woman", or are you now going to argue - "Since you won't fuck a transfaggot that means Chad can reject 9's and be incel"

9s not 9's

You're missing the point, which is "no true incel". There is never an absolute one, so however it is defined is in degrees in regard to populations.

It makes more sense to esablish it in tiers.

10s-only-Chad would be like "tier 9 volcel tier 1 incel" since he's mostly volcel (rejects foids 1-9) and only tiny bit incel (rejected by gigastacy)

"as long as it's not a tranny" would be like tier 1 volcel (excludes a smallgroup) and tier 9 incel.

Obviously that's why colloequially the 9v1i is thought of as volcel while the 1v9i is thought of as incel, because in either case that's the highest-weighted factor.

 

[BlkPillPres]

You're missing the point, which is "no true incel". There is never an absolute one

You're missing the point, what you are saying has implications, you aren't actually arguing "no true incel", you are arguing "no incel criteria exists", and the implication of that is "EVERYBODY IS INCEL IF THEY HAVE HIGH ENOUGH STANDARDS"

The end result of your bullshit argument is NOBODY IS INCEL

So what are you doing on an incel forum if you actually believe the bullshit you are spewing, if there's no criteria that is dependable as "default" then nobody is incel because anybody can claim the label of incel

Your entire argument is a SELF DEFEATING ARGUMENT, it makes no sense

 

[Sheogorath]

you aren't actually arguing "no true incel",
you are arguing "no incel criteria exists",

Er no, let me explain here.

The obvious incel criteria is this: people exist who do not want to fuck you. That's the "measurable" criteria.

It's a stat probably fluctuating somewhere between 4 and 7.5 billion in nearly all cases.

and the implication of that is "EVERYBODY IS INCEL IF THEY HAVE HIGH ENOUGH STANDARDS"

In the sense of having an incel part.

If I were compare to something else, say 'meat-eater' for example, it's more to acknowledge you could measure that in how much meat is eaten, not just the absolute fact that some unquantified amount is.

The end result of your bullshit argument is NOBODY IS INCEL

You're going to be misunderstanding it the more you continue to frame it as a dichotomy.

Think of it like this "short" and "tall". Saying this is subjective doesn't mean I'm saying the concepts of short/tall exist but that it's a constant continuum of measurements with a blurry middle area.

So what are you doing on an incel forum if you actually believe the bullshit you are spewing,

I believe in our groups' condensing toward one end of the continuum when weighing our overall prospects. I just don't see an actual hard line anywhere.

Kind of like with thin people or fat people. We know these extremes exist but can also acknowledge there's never a clear line on where 'normal' begins or how extreme someone needs to deviate from normal to be called the word.

if there's no criteria that is dependable as "default" then nobody is incel because anybody can claim the label of incel

Your entire argument is a SELF DEFEATING ARGUMENT, it makes no sense

People can claim labels, but I'm saying to do so without context is not informative.

For example people can say "I'm a jogger" but how much do they jog relative to other joggers? Maybe some joggers jog so much they're more different from casual joggers thancasual joggers are to normies.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Er no, let me explain here.

The obvious incel criteria is this: people exist who do not want to fuck you. That's the "measurable" criteria.

It's a stat probably fluctuating somewhere between 4 and 7.5 billion in nearly all cases.


In the sense of having an incel part.

If I were compare to something else, say 'meat-eater' for example, it's more to acknowledge you could measure that in how much meat is eaten, not just the absolute fact that some unquantified amount is.


You're going to be misunderstanding it the more you continue to frame it as a dichotomy.

Think of it like this "short" and "tall". Saying this is subjective doesn't mean I'm saying the concepts of short/tall exist but that it's a constant continuum of measurements with a blurry middle area.


I believe in our groups' condensing toward one end of the continuum when weighing our overall prospects. I just don't see an actual hard line anywhere.

Kind of like with thin people or fat people. We know these extremes exist but can also acknowledge there's never a clear line on w. here 'normal' begins or how extreme someone needs to deviate from normal to be called the word.



People can claim labels, but I'm saying to do so without context is not informative.

For example people can say "I'm a jogger" but how much do they jog relative to other joggers? Maybe some joggers jog so much they're more different from casual joggers thancasual joggers are to normies.

You're just saying excessive and pointless semantic BS, the end result is "EVERYBODY IS INCEL". If anyone can go on their own criteria based on their own circumstances, THEN EVERYONE IS INCEL, which means NOBODY IS INCEL

A label for something like this can't be so open ended in criteria because that defeats the purpose of the label

Think of it like this "short" and "tall". Saying this is subjective doesn't mean I'm saying the concepts of short/tall exist but that it's a constant continuum of measurements with a blurry middle area

The irony of saying this knowing that 6ft is the the default cut off point for someone to be considered "tall" in most all countries of the world, the exception does not disprove the rule, these things aren't as blurry as you are trying to make them out to be, this entire thread just seems like a fakecel trying to justify his existence on the forum

 

[Sheogorath]

You're just saying excessive and pointless semantic BS,

It's not excessive or pointless to me. But I acknowledge your feels.

the end result is "EVERYBODY IS INCEL".

When you view it as a state of relationship to other people, then they are % incel to whoever would turn them down, and there are people who would do that.

If the dual req is "would turn them down" and "is a target of attraction" that's fine but then you know it has to do with personal standards and the line with volcel concept blurs.

If anyone can go on their own criteria based on their own circumstances, THEN EVERYONE IS INCEL, which means NOBODY IS INCEL

Correct: which is why we should treat it worthless as a root term, gaining meaning from additional modifies to provide context.

A label for something like this can't be so open ended in criteria because that defeats the purpose of the label

A label need not have a standalone purpose if it's purpose is to gain varied meanings via attached modifiers for wider purposes.

The irony of saying this knowing that 6ft is the the default cut off point for someone to be considered "tall" in most all countries of the world, the exception does not disprove the rule, these things aren't as blurry as you are trying to make them out to be, this entire thread just seems like a fakecel trying to justify his existence on the forum

This thread is me responding to watcher's comment because it seemed like the perfect example to center this conversation around.

To assert there are genuine/true incels and non-genuine/fake incels implies we have well-defined consensus-based standards set, when we don't.

If you want to go ahead and assert something like "you must be under 6ft to be incel" feel free, but I think you'll hit resistance there or any other criteria on the correlated looks issues.

 

[DepressionTookMyIQ]

chad slayer=kissless virgin who got his dick sucked but didn't even cum

 

[Personalityinkwell]

This kind of simp gatekeeping is denying men to have right to choose (even if that right just theoretical), and puting femoids on pedestal, as only they can define man's inceldom status

Based and high IQ

 

[FinnCel]

If you are refusing sex, you are retarded and volcel

 

[FrothySolutions]

what are your standards ?

Our standards don't matter. It's whether women like us that make us incel. If no woman would willingly have sex with us, out her own choice/desire to, we're incel.

 

[cryptic__egg]

If I was 6/10 that could date even a 5/10 I wouldn't be here, jfl at Stacy-only fakecels

 

[watcher]

If some guy only enjoys sex w/ 10/10 gigastacies because his standards are impossibly high, and is refusing sex with 9/10 rank women, I guess he's technically incel, but he's a very different kind of incel than the guy who would enjoy sex with women 2/10 or higher and only rejects sex with rank 1/10 women.

One elephant in the room of the whole truecel/fakecel thing is we seem to accept some level of "standards matter" yet there's no consensus on how far they can matter.

It's especially odd since standardscel mentalceldom is often a mix of genuine disgust and mere cope like "I'll set the bar much higher than I actually need to based on who would reciprocate"

That just doesn't exist. Testosterone cause men to have lower standards, the most masculine giga Chads/Tyrones are actually the ones who have the lowest standards.

 

[Personalityinkwell]

If you are refusing sex, you are retarded and volcel

what if you can't get your dick hard?

 

[AlexanderTheGreat11]

I have some standarts

 

[Deleted member 23981]

no an incel is a sub-5 male, if your below sub-5 your incel,face and lms has a sub 3 face but fucked one ugly bitch that still makes an incel, if you're a sub 3 male and you approach women 1000's of times your boundd to get one lay be it a land whale or an extremely ugly girl, to be an incel you have to be below sub-5 and truecel below sub-3

 

[FinnCel]

what if you can't get your dick hard?

Then you aren't refusing

 

[Personalityinkwell]

Then you aren't refusing

i see

 

[Sheogorath]

That just doesn't exist.
Testosterone cause men to have lower standards,
the most masculine giga Chads/Tyrones are actually the ones who have the lowest standards.

I'll have to look further into your claims, but even if testosterone works like beer goggles, high-T chads had the most selection and thus even if they are willing to resort to sub-stacies, they'll rare have to.

Our standards don't matter.
It's whether women like us that make us incel.
If no woman would willingly have sex with us, out her own choice/desire to, we're incel.

Prostitutes are willing, and we don't actually get active feedback on the entirety of foids.

jfl at Stacy-only fakecels

It's not fake though. I'd just call it maybe "lessincels" (LICs) while those of us who have lower standards but still don't get laid due to being incel in respect to a higher proportion of the population would be "moreincels" (MICs)

Then you aren't refusing

Actually even if your dick can't get hard, you could still try to eat out the landwhale so she'll blow you and maybe get your dick hard.

So if you refuse to 69 to try to get a boner, it's volcel in respect to the landwhale.

Also: what if the reason we don't get boners is due to high standards because we choose to read too much porn? Maybe our choices are leading to our own impotence-in-respect-to-landwhales in which case it's partly voluntary in a disconnected way.

 

[FinnCel]

I'll have to look further into your claims, but even if testosterone works like beer goggles, high-T chads had the most selection and thus even if they are willing to resort to sub-stacies, they'll rare have to.


Prostitutes are willing, and we don't actually get active feedback on the entirety of foids.


It's not fake though. I'd just call it maybe "lessincels" (LICs) while those of us who have lower standards but still don't get laid due to being incel in respect to a higher proportion of the population would be "moreincels" (MICs)


Actually even if your dick can't get hard, you could still try to eat out the landwhale so she'll blow you and maybe get your dick hard.

So if you refuse to 69 to try to get a boner, it's volcel in respect to the landwhale.

Also: what if the reason we don't get boners is due to high standards because we choose to read too much porn? Maybe our choices are leading to our own impotence-in-respect-to-landwhales in which case it's partly voluntary in a disconnected way.

Well if she sucks like a vacuum cleaner, you probably will get your dick hard

 

[FrothySolutions]

Prostitutes are willing, and we don't actually get active feedback on the entirety of foids.

By "want" I mean "choose." A prostitute has no more choice in having sex with me than a cashier has choice in ringing up my groceries. Even if she hates me, she has to. She's legally and contractually obligated. Barring some violation I make where she can deny me service, she literally owes me sex. Because I paid for it. Her feelings and wants and consent don't factor in.

 

[Sheogorath]

Well if she sucks like a vacuum cleaner,
you probably will get your dick hard

Only sharkuum can do that.

All I want in life is a vacuum cleaner genetically spliced with a shark to be my wife.

No IRL foid will ever be as brave and pure.

Lowest IQ thread on this forum.

Incel is the guy that gets rejected by all foids. Period. He doesn't need to try every foid in every shithole in the world.

The same way you don't need to try every blue ringged octopus to know they all are deadly.

He can have preferences for a 8/10 or 6/10. We all have.

Doesnt mean he rejects all other bellow that.

I'm not talking about rejecting 7s or rejecting 5s, but rather how we are probably pre-rejecting 1s/2s.

While it is true that the vast majority of 1s/2s probably would rather be volcel than fuck us (just as there could be a small minority of male 1s / male 2s who would rather be celibate than fuck women who are 1 or 2) there could be untested exceptions who are willing to.

It makes sense to be testing them than to be testing gigastacies, probably a higher % of 1s/2s who would want to fuck us than the % of 9s/10s

You sound like you believe that landwhale foids are people, humans even...
Are you actually serious!?

Sure, just because I'm repulsed by their habits and the body resulting from it doesn't mean I will ignore the fragments of a person buried beneath that impulsive hedonistic shell.

 

[watcher]

I'll have to look further into your claims, but even if testosterone works like beer goggles, high-T chads had the most selection and thus even if they are willing to resort to sub-stacies, they'll rare have to.

Have you ever seen the kind of girl that male models date? They are often average looking girls. Only men dating really hot trophy wives are the high status and rich men.