Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Theory The only solution to Inceldom: Compulsory Asexuaility

IncelCatechumen

IncelCatechumen

Self-banned
-
Joined
Jul 3, 2021
Posts
1,333
The main issue behind sexual liberation is not that it created an unequal distribution of sex like Houellebecq affirmed in Whatever. The problem with 60´s sexual liberation and the sexually degenerated spirit of Stonewall is that it imposed over society a certain sexual imperative: a regiment of compulsory sexuality. In late (late) capitalist societies sex is simply inescapable, from the promotion of condoms, kinks, abortion, pills, and pornography to the mere existence of sex education, this regiment of compulsory sexuality imposes a logic of entitlement and expectations towards sex. We incels are simply the victims of this regiment that transforms sex into normality while simultaneously perceiving sexlesness as abnormal.

In this sense, the solution to inceldom is not the equal redistribution of sex like the inheritors of socialist utopianism think, nor does the acceleration of the sexual liberation helps us in any shape or form (lefty incels like to call this "hippiepill"). Redcels are not solving the issue since they're still operating from the logic of sexual compulsion.

However, since sex-positivity is not going to help us, some might be tempted to take the "tradcon" pill. It's true that the regiment of sexual restraint is indeed more open to asexuality than this clown world of Stonewall degeneracy. Yet, pre-60s sexual regiment still bounded sex under the constraint of marraige, the expectations surrounding marriage were strong and oppressive, and it's not like we, 21th century incels, are able to mary anyway. In contemporary society, marriage appears as merely a contract between two "free" members of society: its reproductive and spiritual role is completely devalued due to the 19th century romantic revolution. This explains why such a legal and anthropological monstrosity like "gay marriage" exists. In the end, conservatism still functions within the logic of compulsory sexuality although it is constraint through the connection between marraige and virginity. Therefore, the problem is not sexual restraint or sexual liberation, the problem is sex in itself.

Therefore, the only solution to compulsory sexuality is compulsory asexuality. Our political-ideological program should be based on imposing a logic of asexuality to society. Moreover, this is beneficial to the ideological consistency of the incel movement because it positions our ideas in a great long-standing position of asexual ideology, that goes from the monastical anti-sex nature of Buddhism and oriental Christianity (see the ascetic lifestyle of the Saints of the Desert) to 19th century German pessimism like Schopenhauer and Mainlander. Our program should be partially anti-natalist (more on that later), since the creation of babies presupposes sex, ascetical, and anti-sexual in broader terms.

Nofap, anti-pornography, anti-birth control pills, anti-abortion, anti-condoms, anti-prostitution, and anti-dating apps should be our negative program while complete sexual abstinence should be our positive program. We need to turn into monks and imposed our system to both chads and foids. In short terms, we need to impose an asexual Empire.

Some counter-arguments to compulsory asexuality migth be the following ones:

1) If you are anti-natalist why go against abortion and birth control?

Because we are not only partially anti-natalist but also anti-sex. Abortion and birth control presupposes sex and it also imposes a logic of sexual compulsion due to its constant promotion in society, it also makes sex less risky.

2) How can you maintain an anti-sex society? I mean it´s going to implode eventually due to low numbers.

Our anti-natalism is partial: we believe that it´s possible to maintain an anti-sex society through sperm banks and artificial insemination. This process of artificial insemination is not going to be based on eugenics (which serves as an extension of sexual selection) but rather randomly selected. We are anti-natalist in the sense that we don´t promote marriage (polygamy or monogamy) as a way to maintain the zoological human. That´s why we are partial anti-natalist since we are anti-sex (sex being a huge part of pro-natalist policies).


@thevenon @OwlGod You guys were interested in constructing an ideology.
 
Last edited:
cope. theres nothing to be gained
 
Almost completely agree but the 2 big problems to overcome are:-
  1. Male biology - Men just want to fuck and if it's on the table they'll take it. If men start abstaining from that then best case scenario hypergamy will decrease slightly...and women will offer it more...and men will accept it... and then women will become more picky and we'll be back on the track to where we are now
  2. Pussy as a social currency - "How many girls have you fucked bro?", "Who are you dating bro?", "Why haven't you smashed yet bro? You an incel?". Men these days for some insane reason have cucked themselves into thinking the amount of fucks you have had is somehow something to be valued and is the be all and end all in life and young men are pressured by that and get caught up in that trap...as I did. The experience of sex itself is to be valued no doubt, but that's it. It should be no more important to the value of a person than how many cakes you have eaten in your life. But convincing men to stop valuing each other on fuck count would be very hard.
But I do believe that in order for young non-attractive men to be even content in life they need to be taught in no uncertain terms to ABSOLUTELY NOT base their value and self worth on the opinions of degenerate braindead women and to utterly disregard women as much as possible. That should be the first step - stay away from whatever hurts you or makes you feel bad.
 
What does this solve? No one judges me for not having sex? The fuck do I care, I'd wanna have sex even if it were illegal.
 
Almost completely agree but the 2 big problems to overcome are:-
  1. Male biology - Men just want to fuck and if it's on the table they'll take it. If men start abstaining from that then best case scenario hypergamy will decrease slightly...and women will offer it more...and men will accept it... and then women will become more picky and we'll be back on the track to where we are now
  2. Pussy as a social currency - "How many girls have you fucked bro?", "Who are you dating bro?", "Why haven't you smashed yet bro? You an incel?". Men these days for some insane reason have cucked themselves into thinking the amount of fucks you have had is somehow something to be valued and is the be all and end all in life and young men are pressured by that and get caught up in that trap...as I did. The experience of sex itself is to be valued no doubt, but that's it. It should be no more important to the value of a person than how many cakes you have eaten in your life. But convincing men to stop valuing each other on fuck count would be very hard.
But I do believe that in order for young non-attractive men to be even content in life they need to be taught in no uncertain terms to ABSOLUTELY NOT base their value and self worth on the opinions of degenerate braindead women and to utterly disregard women as much as possible. That should be the first step - stay away from whatever hurts you or makes you feel bad.

Yes, but that's why I mentioned the monastic principles of buddhism and oriental Christianity: in this sense the principle of controlling women's sexuality (very traditional indeed, women´s sexuality is demonic) should be fundamental.

Our movement is going against the status quo, and the problems that we are going to face are no less similar than the communist, fascists, and even Christians face in this clown world.
What does this solve? No one judges me for not having sex? The fuck do I care, I'd wanna have sex even if it were illegal.

You are weak. You should strive for a personal Benedict option: if you play by the rules of the sex-havers you´re going to lose, as simple as that
 
Nah, you're balls deep into the cope.
 
Masses of truecels lived a sexless lives but Chads ( kings, landlords, aristocracy, knights ) fucked all the women. Some even by force. Imagine being an obedient faithful truecel while your daughter or wife is taken by force from you by some strongman. This is an epitome of cuck. But being prideful were strongly discouragued in traditional societies for truecels. Truecels needed to be humbly, obedient, peaceful, meek while their masters were proud, arrogant and forceful.
 
Masses of truecels lived a sexless lives but Chads ( kings, landlords, aristocracy, knights ) fucked all the women. Some even by force. Imagine being an obedient faithful truecel while your daughter or wife is taken by force from you by some strongman. This is an epitome of cuck. But being prideful were strongly discouragued in traditional societies for truecels. Truecels needed to be humbly, obedient, peaceful, meek while their masters were proud, arrogant and forceful.
Buddha used to be a prince, as well as his brother...
 
People *like* having sex. How exactly are you going to bring in compulsory asexuality? Nobody's going to vote for it.
 
People *like* having sex. How exactly are you going to bring in compulsory asexuality? Nobody's going to vote for it.

There is no electoral politics for this spiritual class. We need to wait for an Event, we need to wait for something to happen. Climate Change is a great example of an event that would re-shape the perception of reality.
People *like* having sex. How exactly are you going to bring in compulsory asexuality? Nobody's going to vote for it.

Although this is certainly an issue. I feel that we have two options to solve the question of popularity:

- We become a religious movement: a neo-Buddhism with pessimist characteristics, and engage in the Benedictine Option to just escape from reality by constructing autarkic communities.

- Trying to impose an asexual Empire.
 
Last edited:
Buddha used to be a prince, as well as his brother...
He had sex with the most beautiful and hottest women available. Probably he was just fed up with pleasures and found solice in self-control and mild asceticism while truecels lived their whole life unwanted by women and are forced to take the same path...
It's like first world millionare telling to a starved African :" Look at me, I left all my possessions, donated my money to charity funds and now live a simple quiet life in a small wooden house near the forest".
 
He had sex with the most beautiful and hottest women available. Probably he was just fed up with pleasures and found solice in self-control and mild asceticism while truecels lived their whole life unwanted by women and are forced to take the same path...
It's like first world millionare telling to a starved African :" Look at me, I left all my possessions, donated my money to charity funds and now live a simple quiet life in a small wooden house near the forest".

Yes? Maybe if you weren´t such an egocentric narcissist you would perceive Buddha as a model rather than just "another Chad that god tired of sex."

Sex is extremely compulsory, and that´s our issue as abnormal guys. There are simply no spaces in society for sexual losers: in Medieval times monasteries were useful for this purpose.
 
Yes? Maybe if you weren´t such an egocentric narcissist you would perceive Buddha as a model rather than just "another Chad that god tired of sex."

Sex is extremely compulsory, and that´s our issue as abnormal guys. There are simply no spaces in society for sexual losers: in Medieval times monasteries were useful for this purpose.
If he was so preoccupied about mystery of life from the start, he wouldn't be engaged in sex in the first place. There were philosophers who never had sex.
 
If he was so preoccupied about mystery of life from the start, he wouldn't be engaged in sex in the first place. There were philosophers who never had sex.

We wasn´t preoccupied about enlightenment from the start, that´s the whole point of his story
 
We wasn´t preoccupied about enlightenment from the start, that´s the whole point of his story
I read that when father of St. Thomas Aquinas brought a beautiful woman to seduce his son to 'normal life', Aquinas just casted her out. I mean, no one forced Gautama to have sex with all these young pretty females.
 
How? The issue is compulsory sexuality, not the mere fact that you are not fucking. We should stop trying to integrate ourselves into the normalcy of sex-compulsory society.
I read that when father of St. Thomas Aquinas brought a beautiful woman to seduce his son to 'normal life', Aquinas just casted her out. I mean, no one forced Gautama to have sex with all these young pretty females.

No you´re just being straight up retarded, focusing on futile issues rather than on the bigger picture. Anyway, Aquinas is a great example of why we need systems that promote compulsory asexuality.
 
Last edited:
Yes, chemical castration is the answer!!!!1
 
Our political-ideological program should be based on imposing a logic of asexuality to society. Moreover, this is beneficial to the ideological consistency of the incel movement because blah blah blah
This is where your entire post is invalidated and everything you say can be freely discarded.

There is no ideology, let alone ideological "program".

There is no incel movement.

Getting massive g-man subverter vibes from OP. Is this supposed to be a new psyop aggressively pushing the idea that there's an incel movement and an ideology? That's the shit the MSM keeps telling NPCs.
 
This is where your entire post is invalidated and everything you say can be freely discarded.

There is no ideology, let alone ideological "program".

There is no incel movement.

Getting massive g-man subverter vibes from OP. Is this supposed to be a new psyop aggressively pushing the idea that there's an incel movement and an ideology? That's the shit the MSM keeps telling NPCs.

There is not, but you can observe a strong influence of 19th century German pessimism ideas in the blackpill which is properly the ideology that is promoted by this page based on evolutionary psychology (which can say that Schopenhauer is a precursor of that) while simultaneously maintaining a pessimist perception of the world (also Schopenhauer) and anti-foidism (also Schopenhauer). Not only that but one of the main users of .is is called "Mainlander" (another German pessimist).
There is not, but you can observe a strong influence of 19th century German pessimism ideas in the blackpill which is properly the ideology that is promoted by this page based on evolutionary psychology (which can say that Schopenhauer is a precursor of that) while simultaneously maintaining a pessimist perception of the world (also Schopenhauer) and anti-foidism (also Schopenhauer). Not only that but one of the main users of .is is called "Mainlander" (another German pessimist).

The idea that inceldom is mainly a circumstance seems rather reductionist. Yes, that's the basic term, but not even this forum abides by that since the common narrative is that one of the blackpill (which is scientific-based, particularly in regards to the question of Lookism)
 
Masses of truecels lived a sexless lives but Chads ( kings, landlords, aristocracy, knights ) fucked all the women. Some even by force. Imagine being an obedient faithful truecel while your daughter or wife is taken by force from you by some strongman. This is an epitome of cuck. But being prideful were strongly discouragued in traditional societies for truecels. Truecels needed to be humbly, obedient, peaceful, meek while their masters were proud, arrogant and forceful.
Tbh
 
Cope. You can't change society. Everyone wants to have sex and it will stay that way. We are just the outcast losers that nobody gives a fuck about. They dont value our opinion or even existence since we are genetic deadends.
 
:feelshaha:
Cope. You can't change society. Everyone wants to have sex and it will stay that way. We are just the outcast losers that nobody gives a fuck about. They dont value our opinion or even existence since we are genetic deadends.
:feelsthink:
 
There is not, but you can observe a strong influence of 19th century German pessimism ideas in the blackpill which is properly the ideology that is promoted by this page based on evolutionary psychology (which can say that Schopenhauer is a precursor of that) while simultaneously maintaining a pessimist perception of the world (also Schopenhauer) and anti-foidism (also Schopenhauer). Not only that but one of the main users of .is is called "Mainlander" (another German pessimist).
Shared beliefs or psychological traits of do not constitute an ideology. That is a collection of beliefs that are encapsulated into a system designed to guide behavior e.g., socialism is a political ideology that guides the behavior of wealth redistribution. Pessimism being a dominant characteristic among a group doesn't make it an ideology anymore than optimism does in a group of hopeless romantics.

The idea that inceldom is mainly a circumstance seems rather reductionist. Yes, that's the basic term, but not even this forum abides by that since the common narrative is that one of the blackpill (which is scientific-based, particularly in regards to the question of Lookism)
It's both circumstantial and genetic. The black pill itself is reductionist. It's a way (like the process of science, but far less rigorous) of reducing things to their constituent, atomistic parts i.e., reaching the bare, core truth. It's not a formal methodology, but an informal way of classification and identification.
 
Shared beliefs or psychological traits of do not constitute an ideology. That is a collection of beliefs that are encapsulated into a system designed to guide behavior e.g., socialism is a political ideology that guides the behavior of wealth redistribution. Pessimism being a dominant characteristic among a group doesn't make it an ideology anymore than optimism does in a group of hopeless romantics.


It's both circumstantial and genetic. The black pill itself is reductionist. It's a way (like the process of science, but far less rigorous) of reducing things to their constituent, atomistic parts i.e., reaching the bare, core truth. It's not a formal methodology, but an informal way of classification and identification.

Even this process of individualization of science (which shows its constructivist nature) is not outside of ideology. There is an organic philosophy, although vulgar, that blackpill theory tends to promote without even being aware of it, this is ideology. The pessimism of incels should not be reduced to a merely psychological disposition towards lethargy, this might be helpful for a psychologist, but not for us.

Which is not true: in Medieval times aristocratic families tended to have members inside of the structures of power such as the Church (which imposed a regiment of compulsory asexuality in places like monasteries). This is just pure a-historical biologicism of "muh everyone likes sex"
Cope. You can't change society. Everyone wants to have sex and it will stay that way. We are just the outcast losers that nobody gives a fuck about. They dont value our opinion or even existence since we are genetic deadends.

False due to ahistoricity. How can you explain the regiments of compulsory asexuality in the plurality of monastical orders in both the East and the West? Not only that but during the regiment of sexual restraint before the sexual revolutions individuals were simply more open to asexuality due to sex being constrained by marraige and virginity. Furthermore, during the Victorian Era clitorial orgasms where "demonized" and Freud (20th century) affirmed that the only type of "proper orgasm" was through vaginal penetration. These, to a certain extent, are politics of sex restriction: if "everyone wants sex" then why would there were restrictions to sexual experiences in the past?
 
Last edited:
Masses of truecels lived a sexless lives but Chads ( kings, landlords, aristocracy, knights ) fucked all the women. Some even by force. Imagine being an obedient faithful truecel while your daughter or wife is taken by force from you by some strongman. This is an epitome of cuck. But being prideful were strongly discouragued in traditional societies for truecels. Truecels needed to be humbly, obedient, peaceful, meek while their masters were proud, arrogant and forceful.
Confidence is perceived as arrogance in ugly men.:fuk:
Even this process of individualization of science (which shows its constructivist nature) is not outside of ideology. There is an organic philosophy, although vulgar, that blackpill theory tends to promote without even being aware of it, this is ideology. The pessimism of incels should not be reduced to a merely psychological disposition towards lethargy, this might be helpful for a psychologist, but not for us.


Which is not true: in Medieval times aristocratic families tended to have members inside of the structures of power such as the Church (which imposed a regiment of compulsory asexuality in places like monasteries). This is just pure a-historical biologicism of "muh everyone likes sex"


False due to ahistoricity. How can you explain the regiments of compulsory asexuality in the plurality of monastical orders in both the East and the West? Not only that but during the regiment of sexual restraint before the sexual revolutions individuals were simply more open to asexuality due to sex being constrained by marraige and virginity. Furthermore, during the Victorian Era clitorial orgasms where "demonized" and Freud (20th century) affirmed that the only type of "proper orgasm" was through vaginal penetration. These, to a certain extent, are politics of sex restriction: if "everyone wants sex" then why would there were restrictions to sexual experiences in the past?
The Elite won't let us. They control journalism and furthemore public opinion. Such things didn't exist when those models were risen or at least not in the current scale.
Even if could change something we won't experience the things that Chad had experienced. Let alone in our youth.
 
Last edited:
Confidence is perceived as arrogance in ugly men.:fuk:

The Elite won't let us. They control journalism and furthemore public opinion. Such things didn't exist when those models were risen or at least not in the current scale.
Even if could change something we won't experience the things that Chad had experienced. Let alone in our youth.

Why would you want to experience what Chad´s experiences? That´s the worst thing that you can do: you discontent comes from seexual compulsion, that´s it.
 
Even this process of individualization of science (which shows its constructivist nature) is not outside of ideology. There is an organic philosophy, although vulgar, that blackpill theory tends to promote without even being aware of it, this is ideology.
What is that ideology then? Can you explicitly state it?

The pessimism of incels should not be reduced to a merely psychological disposition towards lethargy, this might be helpful for a psychologist, but not for us.
What do you mean by, "helpful for us"? We don't need the common trait of pessimism to help us in some way. Our pessimism is descriptive; it does not need to be prescriptive in some way.
 
@IncelCatechumen
Empiricism, and in certain cases Cartesianism or Adequacionism (rare)
What do you mean by, "helpful for us"? We don't need the common trait of pessimism to help us in some way. Our pessimism is descriptive; it does not need to be prescriptive in some way.

I was referring to the structural nature of the incel issue which should not be reduced to a mere psychological phenomena: my theory is not that the issue is an unequal redistribution of sex but rather the sex compulsory regime. Whether or not incels want to tackle the issue is a question of individual decision. You can still abide by the sex compulsory rules and become more miserable as a result.
 
Last edited:
Almost completely agree but the 2 big problems to overcome are:-
  1. Male biology - Men just want to fuck and if it's on the table they'll take it. If men start abstaining from that then best case scenario hypergamy will decrease slightly...and women will offer it more...and men will accept it... and then women will become more picky and we'll be back on the track to where we are now
  2. Pussy as a social currency - "How many girls have you fucked bro?", "Who are you dating bro?", "Why haven't you smashed yet bro? You an incel?". Men these days for some insane reason have cucked themselves into thinking the amount of fucks you have had is somehow something to be valued and is the be all and end all in life and young men are pressured by that and get caught up in that trap...as I did. The experience of sex itself is to be valued no doubt, but that's it. It should be no more important to the value of a person than how many cakes you have eaten in your life. But convincing men to stop valuing each other on fuck count would be very hard.
But I do believe that in order for young non-attractive men to be even content in life they need to be taught in no uncertain terms to ABSOLUTELY NOT base their value and self worth on the opinions of degenerate braindead women and to utterly disregard women as much as possible. That should be the first step - stay away from whatever hurts you or makes you feel bad.
 
@EstadodeSitio I already responded to these counterarguments: we need strong will to not submit to the sexo-centric order.
 
Empiricism, and in certain cases Cartesianism or Adequacionism (rare)
Those are philosophies, not ideologies, let alone "incel ideologies." You're stretching it, even for somebody who's glowing.

I was referring to the structural nature of the incel issue which should not be reduced to a mere psychological phenomena:
INCELDOM IS NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA. IT'S AN ONTOLOGICAL STATE OF BEING.

my theory is not that the issue is an unequal redistribution of sex but rather the sex compulsory regime. Whether or not incels want to tackle the issue is a question of individual decision. You can still abide by the sex compulsory rules and become more miserable as a result.
Sex is not "compulsory." For something to be compulsatory, it implies there is a legal or contractual compulsion (moral and ethical, too, but those are non-binding). In other words you don't have a choice in the matter.

Sex is a biological imperative - a drive - but you're never compelled to do it. You're still in control, even when your sex drive is through the roof.
 
Those are philosophies, not ideologies, let alone "incel ideologies." You're stretching it, even for somebody who's glowing.
If you don´t see a connection between the spontaneous ideas that derived from the blackpill and 19th century German Pessimism then I don't know what else to say tbh. You even see constant quotations of Schopenhauer by the users of .is. I´m just introducing the question of asceticism into the question (which was also held by high regard by Schopenhauer and Mainlander).
INCELDOM IS NOT PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENA. IT'S AN ONTOLOGICAL STATE OF BEING.
I agree; it's a state of Otherness due to being the losers in this regime of sexual compulsion.

Sex is not "compulsory." For something to be compulsatory, it implies there is a legal or contractual compulsion (moral and ethical, too, but those are non-binding). In other words you don't have a choice in the matter.

Sex is a biological imperative - a drive - but you're never compelled to do it. You're still in control, even when your sex drive is through the roof.

Compulsion is not merely a juridical idea, as I said, it's something that permeates culture. Of course, cultures are going to construct societies were sex is partially compulsory due to the the simple fact that it´s necessary for the reproduction and continuation of society: however thee nature of sexual compulsion is gradual: some societies are more sexually compulsory than others. In fact, in today´s world sexual compulsion is not even tied to reproduction (like in traditional societies) but rather to hedonism. If you believe that the perceptions about seexuality are inmutable due to some "biological imperative" you are simply wrong: how can you materially explain monastic orders then?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

AshamedVirgin34
Replies
14
Views
560
COPEland
COPEland
AsiaCel
Replies
4
Views
154
wereq
wereq
brazi
Replies
15
Views
251
der_komische
der_komische
T
Replies
11
Views
869
balkanceI
balkanceI

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top