Does anyone ever get the sense that these labels are somewhat of a false dichotomy?
"Incels" who claim to have 0 standards holding them back from attaining sex or relationships, most likely do have some (perhaps incredibly low) standards when it comes to pursuing sex, like choosing not to attempt rape for fear of criminal consequence, or not wanting to have unprotected sex with an 80 year old obese crackwhore with HIV. The presence of any standard, however small, seems at least slightly voluntary.
"Volcels" supposedly have sex readily available, but turn it down through either willpower (overcoming a desire to pursue it) or a lack of interest due hyposexuality (apparently this term offends "asexuals"). But realistically: we can't prove a complete lack of subconscious sexual attraction, and in many cases people who "voluntarily" are celibate, don't need to make much of an effort to do that, so much as avoid the effort it normally takes to succeed in that marketplace.
It seems like both terms fail in describing complete people. They describe general ideas, but perhaps very situational labels that need to be put into a context? Has anyone proposed any alternate terms for describing those in a celibate state, describing some aspect other than voluntariness? I don't think willingness is as all-or-nothing as this dichotomy implies.
I know I'm celibate but I don't really feel welcome or understood in either community because of the extremism in definition and pickiness/exclusion. It's like you can't explore questions like "do I have neglible means due to lack of effort, or do I put in less effort because I lack means?" Causality like this has a circular input and it's like a chicken/egg scenario which doesn't fit well under labels like voluntary/involuntary which oversimplify the human experience.
"Incels" who claim to have 0 standards holding them back from attaining sex or relationships, most likely do have some (perhaps incredibly low) standards when it comes to pursuing sex, like choosing not to attempt rape for fear of criminal consequence, or not wanting to have unprotected sex with an 80 year old obese crackwhore with HIV. The presence of any standard, however small, seems at least slightly voluntary.
"Volcels" supposedly have sex readily available, but turn it down through either willpower (overcoming a desire to pursue it) or a lack of interest due hyposexuality (apparently this term offends "asexuals"). But realistically: we can't prove a complete lack of subconscious sexual attraction, and in many cases people who "voluntarily" are celibate, don't need to make much of an effort to do that, so much as avoid the effort it normally takes to succeed in that marketplace.
It seems like both terms fail in describing complete people. They describe general ideas, but perhaps very situational labels that need to be put into a context? Has anyone proposed any alternate terms for describing those in a celibate state, describing some aspect other than voluntariness? I don't think willingness is as all-or-nothing as this dichotomy implies.
I know I'm celibate but I don't really feel welcome or understood in either community because of the extremism in definition and pickiness/exclusion. It's like you can't explore questions like "do I have neglible means due to lack of effort, or do I put in less effort because I lack means?" Causality like this has a circular input and it's like a chicken/egg scenario which doesn't fit well under labels like voluntary/involuntary which oversimplify the human experience.
