Categories
alt-right creepy cuck empathy deficit entitled babies evil sex-rejecting ladies femoids incels men who should not ever be with girls ever men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape culture reddit roasties sexual abuse sexual exploitation

Incel hopes to find desperate runaway girls and abuse survivors to exploit for sex

Incels: The real creepers

It’s PLEDGE DRIVE time again! WHTM is ad free and entirely dependent on folks like you for its continued existence. If you can afford it, please DONATE HERE NOW! Thanks!

By David Futrelle

Over on the noxious incel forum Truecels.org, one of the resident creepers has a new idea that is actually one of the oldest ideas ever thought of by a human male: exploiting the most vulnerable teenage girls he can find for sex.

He hopes to find these girls on Reddit’s Runaway subreddit, a forum designed to provide resources and support for runaway youths.

“I … have been thinking about finding girls on /r/Runaway who come from abusive households and wish to start a new life somewhere else,” writes FakecelsOUT, a regular commenter on Truecels.org.

I can relate to them because I, too, want to escape my present situation. The biggest difference is that I have over $50,000 in my emergency/runaway fund that I could use to provide both of us with a better life.

What an altruist!

These girls may be more receptive of me — and more forgiving of my terrifying face — because of their desperate circumstances. Over time, they could pair bond with me in a way that normal roasties are incapable of doing because they’ve taken so many cocks during their prime years.

Yes, I’m sure these girls will truly “pair bond” with a creepy asshole trying to exploit their vulnerability. Truly the basis for a loving, long-term relationship.

The feminists and cucks would probably believe that I am “taking advantage” of them, when in reality, I am saving them while also saving myself. It’s a mutually-beneficial arrangement, which angers the feminists because they don’t want to see any truecel being happy.

Yeah, that’s not why feminists, “cucks” and decent people generally would object to this plan. But, no, you shouldn’t be having sex with anyone.

They only want to see us alone, miserable, dejected, bitter, sexually unfulfilled, and completely devoid of love/intimacy. They are spiteful people who don’t even want prostitution to be legal in the U.S. because that would give people like us a sexual outlet.

If FakecelsOUT is just interested in sex, you might wonder, why wouldn’t he hire a prostitute? Because that’s not really what he wants. He wants a young girl so desperate she has no other options but him, and he wants to control her life utterly with the money he’s saved up for this purpose.

“You could offer food, shelter, and water to girls on the street,” one of the site mods helpfully adds,

and the first few times would be altruistically but then once she becomes dependent on you then you state that you can’t be so charitable without compensation.

Yeah, that’s pretty much the plan in a nutshell, dude.

Others on the forum warn the budding altruist-with-stings-attached that these “runaway punk rock girls” tend to be a lot more street-smart than he might expect. But he’s determined not to let the girls he’s exploiting exploit him back.

“Our arrangement would be conditional on me getting my sexual/romantic needs met in exchange for her getting a chance to get back on her feet,” FakecelsOUT explains in a followup comment,

Even if she ditched me as soon as she became established in a new locale, I would at least have good memories to fall back on — unlike my current 36 year-old self who only knows of rejection and IODs [Indicators of Disinterest] from women since hitting puberty 25 fucking years ago!

In another comment, he adds:

The money that I would spend in this type of arrangement would be significantly less than having to pay for an engagement ring, wedding, expenses during marriage, and divorce settlement if I went the “traditional” route like a sucker. … I’m just looking to get my dick wet for once in my pathetic life, and have no problem TEMPORARILY using money as leverage because that’s the only leverage I have as a legitimate 1/10 truecel whose monstrous face repeatedly scares foids away!

Happily. FakecelsOUT isn’t going to be able to put this particular “experiment” into action — as someone has already gone to the Runaway subreddit to warn them about him.

Hopefully, FakecelsOUT  won’t figure out some other way to target desperate young girls. Unfortunately, of course, many others have: homeless girls and young women are routinely preyed upon by predatory “altruists” like him.

And, I should add, by other manosphere types. Indeed, all the way back in 2011 I wrote about a truly depraved post on slimy loser Matt Forney’s old blog In Mala Fide advising horny but frugal men to turn to “freshly homeless young girls” as a cheap alternative to prostitutes.

NOTE: If you would like to genuinely help runaways and keep them out of the hands of scumbags like these, or if you’re in a desperate situation yourself, please contact the National Runaway Safeline, which offers 24-hour phone and online chat as well as numerous other resources. Volunteer opportunities are available. (This is an American organization; feel free to suggest resources in other countries in the comments.)

150 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

Let’s talk about how the concept of soulmates (or a “lid for every pot”) and the idea that people can gain romantic success solely through “effort” psychologically damages people.

Why? Despite what heebee might have implied about us when we were arguing against his “no women are willing to date ugly men” ramblings, we (and feminism in general) don’t support the idea of everyone deserving a partner or that you can somehow “earn” a partner if you just try hard enough.

Relationships are formed by the mutual interest and consent of two (or more) individuals. There isn’t someone out there who has been specifically labeled for your use, and there are definitely people out there who are unable to find partners due to all manner of reasons. And it’s shitty that society pushes the idea of (heterosexual) romantic relationships as being a requirement for all adults and as the most important relationship anyone can have. It’s shitty that men are socialized to depend solely on romantic relationships to fulfill all their needs for emotional support and affection. Our society has a dysfunctional view of how relationships should function.

All of these statements are basic feminism 101 sentiments. What kind of debate is there to have?

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
3 years ago

ty for that excellent reply, Catalpa!

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

@kupo

“soothing your hurt feelings”

My feelings aren’t hurt. I’m more confused. I’m trying to make it clear that I’m ONLYdiscussing “a lid for every pot” and not his OTHER argument’s or heebee himself.

and conceding to you that we are wrong and awful for the things you inferred from our conversation with heebee.

Ok, I’m going to need a [Citation needed] for where that came from.

“What do you hope to gain from such a discussion? Feminism, especially intersectional feminism, already rejects it. We’re all in agreement. What’s to discuss?”

I was hoping to gain the same thing I gain from every other discussion on things that we all agree on. Some thoughtful thoughts? Or some interesting sources at the very least?

@Rhuu

I had thought about it and logged back in to try to edit out the last bit. Too late.

You’re right, I wasn’t clear, it was my mistake, not yours. And DBZ jokes are always the best. ?

Now I’m late anyways. Good thing I work for family.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
3 years ago

I don’t see the issue with saying that if your goal is to be partnered, and it’s not currently happening, you have to work at it. Putting in effort doesn’t guarantee or entitle you to a partner, of course. But getting out and being social, signing up for dating app accounts and reaching out to people, identifying what about you might be putting people off and working on changing it, etc will give you a better chance than sitting home alone.

Any goal you have, you’re more likely to have success if you try, even though success isn’t guaranteed. This seems obvious to me.

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

and conceding to you that we are wrong and awful for the things you inferred from our conversation with heebee.

Ok, I’m going to need a [Citation needed] for where that came from.

Ok, I mean you could scroll back up and re-read what you wrote knowing now how it came off, but instead you demand some extra labor. Here are your receipts.

But again, why the negative judgment that stopping is an unwillingness to make the effort? Why can’t stopping be a mental health break? Or something else?

why describe finding someone solely in terms of effort and a lack thereof when other factors are involved?

I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it?

Maybe I’m reading your statement wrong, but why imply that it’s laziness keeping all these men dateless?

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
3 years ago

I have some charge in the batteries for this, I can do a turn.

@Red R. Lion, hi, I’m’a freja. Can I call you Red?

Maybe I’m reading your statement wrong, but why imply that it’s laziness keeping all these men dateless?

We weren’t implying that men who have “given up” on dating are lazy, that was a defensive misfire on your part. We were saying nearly the opposite – that anyone who doesn’t want to date doesn’t have to put the effort into it if they don’t want to. Dating is not a requirement! Men and women who decide against it are just as valid as those who decide for it.

Seems like you read “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” and interpreted it as us telling him he’s being lazy. We aren’t. We’re knocking the misogynistic excuse out from under him. He doesn’t need an excuse to not date. He can just, y’know, not do it. He doesn’t have to throw us all under the bus in order to justify his decision.

That same misconception also seems to have had you read this whole “every pot has a lid” thing into it, too. We aren’t telling him “keep looking and you’ll eventually find someone,” because that’s wishful thinking. Some people don’t find a partner that works for them, that’s the roll of the dice. We’re telling him that he can’t justify his decision to not date on the idea that all women are too picky to date someone who isn’t a hottie-hotpants.

He has to justify it otherwise, and the justification “it’s not what I want to do” is absolutely fine. So is “I want to take a break from it.” Note that these valid justifications are self-referential – they point to himself, to his emotional state and mental health, to his goals. That’s a valid justification. All women are X is not.

Get it? I can sort of understand your confusion on it. That confusion is sort of sodden in misogyny itself, but, well. Welcome to the Patriarchy. We’re all swimming in it. I don’t blame you, and hope that this (admittedly terrible) description gives you a new perspective.

EDIT: Bonus points (10): All of the above was engendered from a single misconception. What was it, and what is the significance of having that misconception within the context of sexism in society?

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

I was hoping to gain the same thing I gain from every other discussion on things that we all agree on. Some thoughtful thoughts? Or some interesting sources at the very least?

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

But sometimes trying to incite discussion on something that is a fundamental concept of the philosophical fabric of a community seems a bit… disingenuous.

Like if some random troll came here to talk about how women shouldn’t have the vote, gets banned, and then some other member came on afterwards to go “hey guys we should really talk about how women should have the right to vote”. Like… What kind of debate do you expect to happen? Women should have the vote. That’s all that really needs to be discussed on that topic. Expecting people to talk about it more gives off the impression that one either a) doesn’t agree with the wide consensus about the topic but doesn’t have the guts to say so outright or b) is trying to bait other people into saying something against the wide consensus and establish that those other people are bad people.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

@Freja

“@Red R. Lion, hi, I’m’a freja. Can I call you Red?”

Call me whatever you like. ?

“Seems like you read “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” and interpreted it as us telling him he’s being lazy.”

No, I agree with “you’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid.” Since I’m a. gay b. genderfluid and c. afab, I can write entire tomes about how “all women/vagina-havers are x” has negatively hurt my personal life. For the last time, I agree with you all.

And I didn’t interpet “You’re too ugly to date is misogynistic and invalid” as you telling him he’s being lazy; I interperted “It’s that you’ve decided that it’s too much work, and you’d rather put that energy into other things.” as telling him that he was lazy. As I said repeatedly in my first post, I didn’t find your/others original statements super clear.

We aren’t telling him “keep looking and you’ll eventually find someone,” because that’s wishful thinking. Some people don’t find a partner that works for them, that’s the roll of the dice.

Ok, but I didn’t find this clear in the first half of the thread.

@Catalpa

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

Yes, THIS. Besides, I don’t even have the spoons to be disingenuous right now. Sorry if I seem a little pissy.

@kupo

Ok, I mean you could scroll back up and re-read what you wrote knowing now how it came off, but instead you demand some extra labor. Here are your receipts.

Funny, but I don’t see an @kupo in any of those. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

And I still see no-where in those reciepts where I implied that this commentariat was, and I quote, “wrong and awful”. It’s almost as if I didn’t say it at all.

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

Funny, but I don’t see an @kupo in any of those. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

You quited me, specifically, and asked for citations.

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

And since edit isn’t working, apologies for the double post.

And I still see no-where in those reciepts where I implied that this commentariat was, and I quote, “wrong and awful”. It’s almost as if I didn’t say it at all.

So you’re allowed to infer things that freja did not say but I’m not allowed to infer things that you did not say. ?

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

@kupo

“You quited me, specifically, and asked for citations.

Yes after you joined in of your own volation and made wild claims in an attempt to discredit me, yes I directly quoted you and asked for a [citation needed]. Because you first joined this discussion of your own will, you consented to the “labor” that it takes to have a discission. If you want to participate in a discussion of your own free will, you don’t get to bitch about spending the labor.

So you’re allowed to infer things that freja did not say but I’m not allowed to infer things that you did not say. ?

Because I didn’t infer anything but offered my interpertation of something that she DID say. I also conceded right at the beginning that I could be reading her statement wrong, and in no way attempted to make her look like an ass.

And to answer your question, no I DON’T get to infer entire statements that Freja didn’t come close to saying. And no, you DON’T get to infer statements that I didn’t say either.

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
Jesalin: Clit-o-centric Lesbian Goddess
3 years ago

in·fer
/inˈfər/
verb
verb: infer; 3rd person present: infers; past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred; gerund or present participle: inferring

deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
“from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing”
synonyms: deduce, conclude, conjecture, surmise, reason, interpret;

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

Apres vous.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
3 years ago

First off, ‘infer’ means

verb (used with object), in·ferred, in·fer·ring.

to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
to guess; speculate; surmise.

You are both inferring.

Red, I remind you that in this space, we very regularly deal with both people asking us to explain feminism 101 to them, blatant trolls who are mocked, and sneaky trolls who are Just Asking Questions.

The responses someone will get will depend on in which categories they fall. You are currently asking us to explain feminism 101, which takes effort.

Whoever answers you does so of their own volition, but *you still asked*, hoping someone would do that labour for you, rather than googling something. You wanted the back and forth conversation. That’s effort.

If someone replies, pointing this out… It seems pretty petty to go “You didn’t have to respond!”

This, however

Do us both a favor, take a deep breath, and take a seat.

comment image

Is very much not a good look.

But since we are all in agreement that heebee was wrong and that compulsory pairing off is bad, I guess we’re done with the discussion?

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

Admittedly, sometimes there is merit to discussing a concept upon which there is already a wide consensus. Further nuances of more advanced concepts can be explored and a better understanding can be reached.

Yes, THIS. Besides, I don’t even have the spoons to be disingenuous right now.

… Yeah, alright, just quote the portion of my reply that appears to support what you want (i.e. Other members of the commentariat spending time and energy to assure you that “relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism. I’m really not sure what kind of hidden complexities you expect to explore in that sentiment, or why you think it would be considered an “advanced concept”). Completely dismiss all the rest of my comment with a “no I’m not!”. And be incredibly condescending to kupo. Cool.

Yeah, I’m done here.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
3 years ago

Yeah, that’s where I thought this conversation was going to go . . .

But since we are all in agreement that heebee was wrong and that compulsory pairing off is bad, I guess we’re done with the discussion?

Let’s hope.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

“You are both inferring.”

Ok, so I’ll ask you the same thing I asked kupo. Where did I infer that the commentariat here is, and I directly quote, “wrong and awful” in general, to heebee, anywhere?

“You are currently asking us to explain feminism 101, which takes effort.

Whoever answers you does so of their own volition, but *you still asked*, hoping someone would do that labour for you, rather than googling something.

I googled “soulmate theory feminism” before I even posted and came up with literally nothing, so it’s hardly a feminism 101 topic.

I did google something. I even did it before I asked!

Is very much not a good look.

So is shitting on someone with less privilege than you have. I didn’t want to get into my own personal woes, but the “with effort you’ll have your ‘soulmate’ ” concept has had a direct toxic effect on my life as a gay person. I shouldn’t have to justify asking to discuss it just because of who originally brought it up.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
3 years ago

First rule of holes: stop digging.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

[Edit]Is it really so irrational to expect that if someone doesn’t want to have a discussion, that they won’t engage? And ironically in a thread about taking personal responsibility for choices?

@Catalpa

Well not to demand labor from you, but directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “ ‘relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”? I’m also not really sure what kind of hidden complexities I expect to explore in this sentiment, or why I think it would be considered an “advanced concept”.

Or, stop knocking down strawmen?

kupo
kupo
3 years ago

Where did I infer that the commentariat here is, and I directly quote, “wrong and awful” in general, to heebee, anywhere?

You did not. I did. And I was being a little extra snarky and over-the-top, but I did feel that you were getting at a point about us being awful. You kept harping on this idea of a lid for every pot and you did directly state that we were arguing that point.

I went to argue that “we’re”** not arguing that every man has a soulmate or a “lid to his pot”, but once I thought about it, that does kind of sound like what “we’re” arguing doesn’t it?

So no, you didn’t directly state that we were being awful and you may not have intended to imply it, but I did infer it from your arguments (because arguing there’s a lid for every pot is kinda awful — that’s my phrasing, not yours).

I apologize for overstating things and taking out how fed up I am with Just Asking Questions trolls on you.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

[Edit]Is it really irrational to expect that if someone doesn’t want to have a discussion, that they won’t engage? And ironically in a thread about taking personal responsibility for choices?

@Catalpa

Well not to demand labor from you, but directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “ ‘relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”? I’m also not really sure what kind of hidden complexities I expect to explore in this sentiment, or why I think it would be considered an “advanced concept”.

Or, stop knocking down strawmen?

Catalpa
Catalpa
3 years ago

directly where did I say I wanted to explore that “relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner‘” is still a concept that is common in feminism.”?

Right here:

So, what about his point that the whole soulmate/”lid for every pot” thing is toxic and leads to resentment and entitlement, though?

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

Hippodameia
Hippodameia
3 years ago

Red, you’re being an ass. Stop.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

@kupo

I apologize for overstating things and taking out how fed up I am with Just Asking Questions trolls on you.

No problem kupo, apology accepted. I’m sorry as well, water under the bridge? ?

@Everyone

Sorry for getting so worked up myself, truth is, I have a bunch of shit going on as well. I’m going to take my own advice and go lie down.

Sorry for being such an ass.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

I know I drug this thread downhill fast, but just to clear the air;

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

It actually never dawned on me that “soulmate” could be considered compulsory. (To me it’s basically defined as “true love”, and therefore by definition is consentual). Of course, had I actually tried using some reading comprehension I would have realized that I was being told this by you and others over and over again.

In short: Holy fuck did I act the fool here. Thank you all for being as patient with me as you all were as I didn’t really deserve it.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
3 years ago

I know I drug this thread downhill fast, but just to clear the air;

Because the answer to the “but is soulmate theory real?” is “no, because relationships require consent and people have the right to say no, therefore you are not guaranteed a partner”. It’s really that simple.

It actually never dawned on me that “soulmate” could be considered compulsory. (To me it’s basically defined as “true love”, and therefore by definition is consentual). Of course, had I actually tried using some reading comprehension I would have realized that I was being told this by you and others over and over again.

In short: Holy fuck did I act the fool here. Thank you all for being as patient with me as you all were as I didn’t really deserve it.

1 4 5 6
%d bloggers like this: