Categories
incels men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny

Today’s nuclear take: Gay marriage caused incels

That was our question too

It’s pledge drive time! If you’re a fan of this blog, please donate what you can to keep it going by clicking the button below. THANKS!

By David Futrelle

Here’s a new one, courtesy of one irredeemably “blackpilled” Tweeter.

Cantus
@CantusLaudanum

Incels exist because same-sex marriage deregulated the marriage market. It's become a free for all where chads hoard all the sexual wealth

Highly regulated hetero marriage used to be the guarantee every man would get a wife as long as he had a job (any job). This is all obvious

My feelings about this, er, unique claim may perhaps best be conveyed with the following gif:

I mean, where to even start. How on earth does gay marriage have anything to do with the “regulation” of the heterosexual marriage, er, “market?” It’s not like striaght women are suddenly going gay so they can marry their female BFFs. The women getting gay married weren’t going to date you anyway, dudes.

Also: Chad is not hoarding all the women. Marriage rates started dropping decades before gay marriage was a thing. Even in the marriage-crazed 50s no one was guaranteed a spouse, and many of those who eagerly married in those years divorced a decade or two later.

Here, also from Twitter, are some infinitely more plausible explanations for the existence of incels.

Incels exist because feminism happened and women are no longer financially required to have children with monsters.
April Spectrum?
@AprilSpectrum
·
Sep 3
Replying to 
@FrailPaleStaleM
 and 
@IncelsCo
Incels exist because men consistently overestimate their value toward women and underestimate women's free will, and then get mad as hell about it when a woman tells them no.
DARKNESS!!!
@allaganrot
·
May 3, 2018
Incels exist -because society really does tell men that they're worthless if they don't fuck-

THAT is the thing we should be confronting
Marc Knight
@lazyloki88
·
Jan 30
Replying to 
@andymilonakis
 and 
@STPeach
Incels exist because of thotts and thotts exist because of incels its the circle of life
pigeons
@commonpigeons
·
Nov 27, 2018
incels exist because I’ve been hoarding sex and will only sell when the market peaks

Much more sensible explanations.

H/T — @vardex23, for bringing this lovely take to my attention

51 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

Is there a such thing as gay incels? I was wondering that the other day. I know that obviously gay men must sometimes have dry spells the same way anyone else does, but I’ve never heard of gay incels anywhere. Are they a thing, or no? I rather doubt it, seeing as incels seem to be an entitled straight male phenomenon.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
2 years ago

This isn’t even a good post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Even in the days of “highly regulated marriage” (which generally seems to mean a fantasy version of the 1950s), there were men who were “confirmed bachelors,” a phrase that could mean anything. Gay. Preferred to date but not marry. Not a good candidate for marriage, for whatever reason.

“This is all obvious.” No, dear. This is all mammoth poop.

Nick Kiddle
Nick Kiddle
2 years ago

I initially thought that surely gay marriage (and the liberalised social attitudes that went along with it) meant that incels could get a boyfriend instead if they were that desperately horny. But of course no self respecting gay man would go near them either. I suppose they could always screw each other?

Nick Kiddle
Nick Kiddle
2 years ago

@naglfar gay incels would run into the problem of whether they’re entitled to a hot virginal partner or whether they’re the hot virginal partner someone else is entitled to?

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Nick Kiddle

I suppose they could always screw each other?

Well, one MRA suggested that. I don’t think he followed through with it.

gay incels would run into the problem of whether they’re entitled to a hot virginal partner or whether they’re the hot virginal partner someone else is entitled to?

They’d probably just assume the former.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

When you’re comparing same-sex marriage to Ronald Reagan, something has gone drastically awry in Libertarian Hypocrite Land.

Moggie
Moggie
2 years ago

Don’t these guys usually identify as conservative or libertarian? So, shouldn’t they think that deregulation is a good thing?

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Moggie

Don’t these guys usually identify as conservative or libertarian? So, shouldn’t they think that deregulation is a good thing?

In my experience, conservatives want small government for themselves and want to restrict everyone else. Deregulation is good when it serves their interests, bad when it allows anyone else freedom.
So, small government unless it’s on LGBTQIPA+ people, or on PoC, or on women, or anything else that doesn’t perfectly conform to 1950s white picket fence suburbia. Then, big government with tons of regulation is the order of the day.

Knitting Cat Lady
Knitting Cat Lady
2 years ago

No idea how it was in the US, but in my corner of Europe you needed a certain amount of money to actually get married.

So, your bog standard farm hand of any gender, most of the servants, all tradesmen who weren’t masters? Didn’t get married.

People still lived together and had kids, but marriage was beyond them.

Seriously. Mass marriage as we know it today started after WWI and really took off after WWII for the lower classes.

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Knitting Cat Lady

No idea how it was in the US

I don’t know how this was historically, but in the US at present there is a fee to get married. In most states it’s around $50, but in other states it’s higher. I just looked it up and in Minnesota it can be up to $115*.

*It says on this site that in Minnesota “The marriage license fee is $40 with Premarital Education completed. $115.00 without Premarital Education.” Not entirely sure what Premarital Education is. Maybe some Minnesotan Mammothers know?

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

Maggie wrote:

Don’t these guys usually identify as conservative or libertarian? So, shouldn’t they think that deregulation is a good thing?

That’s making the mistake of assuming that conservatives and libertarians actually have principles and beliefs. Only their hatred is honest; everything else is just tactics.

Moggie
Moggie
2 years ago

@Naglfar:

*It says on this site that in Minnesota “The marriage license fee is $40 with Premarital Education completed. $115.00 without Premarital Education.” Not entirely sure what Premarital Education is. Maybe some Minnesotan Mammothers know?

Whatever it is, it has negative value, so presumably it makes you dumber. Best avoided, I think.

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Moggie
If I had to guess, I’d say it’s probably some right-wing program to encourage 1950s sexist gender roles and reduce same-sex marriage. Probably once they realized abstinence-only sex ed can only be applied to children in school, they wanted to find ways to impose these ideas on adults who survived it. If that’s what it is, incels would probably like it.

Prith kDar
Prith kDar
2 years ago

Re Marc Knight’s tweet:

So what does that last “t” in “thott” stand for? That ho over there there? That ho over there temporarily?

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

@Naglfar
Nailed it. You gotta have your priest or pastor sign off on having told you what it’s like to be married, though I’m damned if I understand how priests are supposed to know that.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I’m Minnesotan, but never married, so I didn’t know about that. Ick. We’re typically a fairly progressive state (by US standards) so it’s disappointing.

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meanie
2 years ago

@Naglfar, @Dalillama,

IF this is the program I’m thinking of, the point of Premarital Education is to figuratively dump a bucket of cold water on folks who are still in the haze of love and make them actually think about the realities of marriage before it becomes extremely expensive to get out of it.

Like, from what I understand of the program, the counselor (religious or otherwise) is supposed to make sure the couple is on the same page about finances, whether or not to have kids and when, stuff like that. The idea is to prevent divorces by asking the couple hard relationship questions while they have time to back out of the wedding without loosing a ton of money on it.

Supposedly a lot of marriages get postponed or called off after going through this program, from what I’ve heard. Which probably means that the couples in question decided they weren’t quite ready yet for taking that plunge, and decided to wait a while until they were ready.

ASSuming my information is still correct (I last read about this program at least a decade ago; things could have changed since then), then that’s what Premarital Education is supposed to be about. Not Abstinence Education for Adults.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

Since relationships work exactly like economics, you’d think incels would be heartily supportive of the supply-side approach. All the Staceys SHOULD go exclusively to the top 1% Chads. Chads are sex makers, not sex takers.

Incels just need to be patient and wait for the extra Staceys to be reinvested and trickle down.

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

@Redsilkphoenix

Supposedly a lot of marriages get postponed or called off after going through this program, from what I’ve heard. Which probably means that the couples in question decided they weren’t quite ready yet for taking that plunge, and decided to wait a while until they were ready.



Every single time I think I know how fucked up het people are about relationships, it turns out I was underestimating it. Some people got a lot of fucking nerve talking to us queers about how we run our lives, is all I’m saying.

Meaning no offence to our het commenters, but that many grown fucking adults not having discussed this kinda shit long since is a sign of something deeply wrong with the entire culture around relationships in straight spaces.

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Dalillama

Some people got a lot of fucking nerve talking to us queers about how we run our lives, is all I’m saying.

Look at all the “family values” conservatives who had affairs. Or the evangelicals throwing themselves at Orange Shitstain*. The people who run their mouths the most about being holier-than-thou tend to be the most hypocritical.

that many grown fucking adults not having discussed this kinda shit long since is a sign of something deeply wrong with the entire culture around relationships in straight spaces.

It’s what happens when we don’t tell teenagers accurate answers about sex, pregnancy, birth control, abortion, bodies in general, or relationships. And have a culture that promotes 1950s style heterosexual relationships as the only way.

*side note: Orange Shitstain sounds like the name of the worst soda ever.

Susan
Susan
2 years ago

@Dalillama
I think the rushing into marriage without having had these serious discussions is in part a product of the religious culture that emphasizes marriage as the only acceptable venue for sex and that encourages women to think that marriage is the only acceptable life path and that enforces a sex-separation in many activities such that some young people really have no real contact with the opposite sex outside of courtship.

Naglfar
Naglfar
2 years ago

@Susan
I know people who grew up like that, got married young because they thought that was the only way, and had awful marriages that fell apart quickly but they were stuck in them. It is not a good system.

Weasel-Rah
Weasel-Rah
2 years ago

Way back in the early 90’s, when my family was still dragging me around to various fundie churches in an attempt to save my soul, the youth pastors were always screaming about the Gay. Gay marriage seemed like an impossible pipe dream at this point, and yet they spent huge amounts of time on it. I asked one of them why they cared so very much about something that would never happen, and the response was: in a gay relationship how can you tell who’s the boss? If heterosexuals see relationships like that, it will corrupt them. They will want to not have a boss either. The line he used was something like “why would anyone want a husband when they could have a wife?”

And yes, there were a few “married just to have sex” cases in my extended family among people who were way too damn young.

Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
2 years ago

Highly regulated hetero marriage used to be the guarantee every man would get a wife as long as he had a job (any job). This is all obvious.

Translation: Many men are so loathsome that no one wants to marry them and thus guarantee them steady sex. Won’t someone bring back the bad old days, when women were paid even less than now and men could be certain of sex on the regular.

Battering Lamb
Battering Lamb
2 years ago

Since relationships work exactly like economics, you’d think incels would be heartily supportive of the supply-side approach. All the Staceys SHOULD go exclusively to the top 1% Chads. Chads are sex makers, not sex takers.

Incels just need to be patient and wait for the extra Staceys to be reinvested and trickle down.

I get so many confusing mental images from this and I love the dig at Reaganomics. Thank you.

The line he used was something like “why would anyone want a husband when they could have a wife?”

I feel like I have to paraphrase a mamotheer a couple of articles back who said that straight women are the proof sexuality is not a choice. Seems relevant. :p

1 2 3
%d bloggers like this: