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 replies on “Today’s nuclear take: Gay marriage caused incels”

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.

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.

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?

@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?

@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.

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

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

@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.

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.

@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?

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.

@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.

@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.

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?

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

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

@Weasel-Rah

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?”

I have a number of friends in same-sex relationships, and they’ve mentioned that straight people are always asking them who the “man” is in the relationship. I guess some people just can’t cope with the idea of any relationship being equal partners.

@Kat

Won’t someone bring back the bad old days

Isn’t that basically the GOP platform?

@Weasel-Rah

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?”

This is why I think the much-mocked “gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage” claim is actually the homophobes being honest and correct for once.

Acceptance of marriage where one member is not automatically The Boss Because Penis will help to destroy the concept of marriage that they promote.

The counter-argument really should not be “that is silly, same-sex marriage will have no effect on opposite-sex marriage,” but “destroying the concept of opposite-sex marriage as a gender-based hierarchy is a Good Thing and people in opposite-sex marriages should thank people in same-sex marriages for helping bring it about.”

@Dalillama:

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.

I’m wondering how many of the people that are deterred by this program are horny 18-20 years olds out in the way more religious rural areas. At least I’m hoping these are the majority of them anyway…

However, I’ve also known lots of women who discovered that their partners really didn’t have any clue what the woman actually wanted. The men had just projected their own desires and then maybe just imagined that they were listening to their partners.

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants

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.

The manosphere are all about the sexual marketplace until they’re not getting any, and then suddenly they’re all about government-enforced distribution and central planning…

@Pie

The manosphere are all about the sexual marketplace until they’re not getting any, and then suddenly they’re all about government-enforced distribution and central planning…

Like the libertarians who love free speech until someone they don’t like starts talking, then censorship is needed.

‘The husband is head of the household and makes the decisions.’ I’ll just run that past She Who Must Be Obeyed. If I drop off the Interwebz, never to be seen again, it won’t have gone well.

On second thoughts, I’ll rely on discretion being the better part of valour.

We have that premarital education thing in GA too.
My wedding was officiated by a friend, so she just made sure neither of us was going to make big purchases without the other’s approval and figured we had the rest handled

Didn’t have the premarital thing in CA. Then again we were both 42 so I guess they figured we were well past the horny teenager stage.

We made sure we had our towels, though.

O/T; but people may find this amusing. Progressive in-fighting actually paying off for once.

By way of background, there’s a shop in London sells down and fur products. Surge (an animal rights organisation I have a bit of a connection with) ‘organise’ protests. So do PETA. The shop has sought an injunction banning the protests; but they framed their application in a way that homogenises the protesters and only works if it can be shown they are acting in concert. However, after viewing the video evidence…

ix) In his statement, the Second Claimant has identified efforts by “Surge Activism” to coordinate protests, but I do not consider that, overall, the evidence demonstrates that the protestors as a group are acting (or being coordinated) as a single group, indeed there is evidence that groups of protestors argue amongst themselves.

Whilst the protestors may share a common objection to animal cruelty, the evidence does not support a conclusion that there is any general agreement about the methods of protest to be deployed (the evidence of PETA’s approach being the best example of this).

The court has refused the application for a permanent injunction and lifted the interim one; on, inter alia, the ground that even within the groups people are arguing about what’s the best way of protesting, and that’s before you get onto Surge -v- PETA.

@Naglfar:
Re the “who’s the man” question:
Sadly, sometimes it’s not just the het people asking that.

When my partner & I were still getting to know each other (& before we started dating), I mentioned I’d been in a same sex relationship before that didn’t end well.

My not-yet-partner then asked which of us was the man in that relationship (this from a confirmed lesbian 15 years my junior).

Momentarily stunned, I finally answered that I didn’t think in those terms.

This, it turns out, has been one of the issues we’ve had to thrash out repeatedly as I always thought a sexual relationship between 2 women would be far more egalitarian.

My partner, OTOH, describes herself as the “straightest lesbian” one would ever meet so, yeah, there’ve been some clashes.

Just my 2 cents & sorry for the oversharing.

I still can’t post links here, but Reductress once had a headline like

“Confused straight woman asks lesbian couple, ‘Which one of you is the jerk in the relationship?'”

What has gay marriage not caused at this point?

Nuclear proliferation?

Lumipuna – My answer would have to be “Depends on the day.” But mainly because that’s my answer to most questions like that.

@Moggie

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

I know I’m preaching to the choir here, nevertheless I will say it. It’s all a ruse. The perspective that Left vs Right is all about Equality vs Freedom is misguided. In reality it’s all about hierarchies.

Conservatives want to live in a society where social hierarchies are determined through tradition and theocracy, with the White man on top. Libertarians say that is wrong because social hierarchies should be determined by the Free Market, but then conveniently ommit the fact that they believe White men to be naturally superior to everyone else (hence the often claimed lie that “White men built modern civilization”). Which is why they blame their own predictable failures on “socialism”, because if the market were truly free then they would rise to the top of everyone else.

All in all, I can’t fucking stand libertarians. Why is there a fucking need to inject libertarian jargon into everything? Do they seriously believe it makes them sound smart or something? It’s Sophism at it’s finest, all about style and form instead of essence. Pretending to sound like a pompous git doesn’t validate bad arguments, but they keep on insisting on the same tactic, otherwise others (and most importantly, they themselves) will realize how utterly stupid their narrative sounds.

@Diego Duarte

I’m not surprised at all; Conservatives, and by extension to a degree Libertarian’s; are groups of people be believes and value hierarchical systems. “Their’s always a bigger fish”: with “sharks” at the top, and “minnows” at the bottom (though I hate that the noble, venerable, graceful shark is unfairly associated with such a craven analogy).

But to the point: Conservatives and Libertarians believe that such a pyramid style “social hierarchy” is the “default, natural state” for humanity. In reality it’s as much a man made, fabricated construct just as much as Egalitarianism, except worse since egalitarianism is both a means for allowing a healthy, better, free society of equality and equity… not to mention right wing Neo-Reactionaries are terrible at infiltrating egalitarian ideological structures. Stealing rhetoric from the left though; they do with semi-regularity; but they still cannot actually infiltrate egalitarian movements or ideology very well, if at all.

And thank goodness they can’t. But in contrast; Hierarchy systems, that pyramid of inequity and arbitrary “pecking orders”; it’s an easy graft for right wing neo-reactionaries to infiltrate, if not outright tack themselves onto.

@Tactical Progressive

Hierarchy systems, that pyramid of inequity and arbitrary “pecking orders”; it’s an easy graft for right wing neo-reactionaries to infiltrate, if not outright tack themselves onto.

Absolutely. Some Liberals would like to believe that Libertarians lean more towards the center than the Right, but in reality they are far more likely to grativate to the Far Right than anything, and there are numerous examples for this:

– Pinochet in Chile, backed by both Friedman and the libertarian (classical liberal) movement in their country.

– Fujimori in Peru, backed by libertarians, both then and now, despite his crimes against humanity.

– Hayek supporting Apartheid in South Africa.

– Porfirio Lobo backed by libertarians in Honduras.

– Videla, backed by libertarians in Argentina, who still speak fondly of him to this day.

– Current Trumpism around the world and rise of the Alt Right, tied more to libertarian circles online (4chan, 8chan, reddit, etc) than conservative ones.

The reality about libertarians is, and has always been, that the minute the Free Market doesn’t seem to be “working as intended” they immediately blame women and minorities for their failure. Why? Because they are so used to the privileges afforded to them by the color of their skin that the minute the playing field begins to level towards equality, and they can get by with their mediocrity alone, they insist the game is rigged against them.

And the fact that they would adopt the most extreme form of what they call “statism” despite having proclaimed “liberty” for years and years, is pretty telling about them.

They would rather discard their precious “Liberty” and “Freedom” just to ensure women and minorities are underneath them, and by any means necessary at that too.

@Diego Duarte

Absolutely. Some Liberals would like to believe that Libertarians lean more towards the center than the Right, but in reality they are far more likely to grativate to the Far Right than anything, and there are numerous examples for this:

As far as I can tell, only Libertarians think that they’re in the center. They claim that they’re socially liberal (which isn’t true) but fiscally conservative. Everyone else recognizes that they’re far right socially and fiscally.
If they were actually center, you’d think that they’d vote for roughly equal proportions of Democrats and Republicans (or left and right parties in other countries, I’m just using America as an example). But AFAICT here they only ever vote for hard right Republicans.

Plus, it’s impossible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative as the social and the fiscal are not separate things, they are intertwined. Deciding you have no interest in stopping someone from getting an abortion or having a relationship with someone of the same gender does not make one socially left.

@WWTH

True, and yet they continue to claim some sort of “balance” and a semblance of rationality, whilst they pretend our current society exists in a space of historical and cultural void. As in, that is the only scenario in which libertarian narratives and talking points would make some sort of sense:

One where the violent suppression and dominance of women and minorities did not take place.

@WWTH
I think the big difference between liberal and libertarian stances on gay marriage and abortion (and other issues) is that the liberal attitude is affirmative, supporting action to protect those rights, while the libertarian approach is more just not giving a fuck. To them, gay marriage or no gay marriage is fine, they just don’t care.
If they actually cared, they’d maybe vote for the party that protects those rights once in a while.

Every libertarian that I’ve heard claim to be “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” votes a straight conservative ticket.

It’s just a ruse, the very “virtue signalling” that they claim liberals engage in.

@Allandrel

It’s just a ruse, the very “virtue signalling” that they claim liberals engage in.

The projection yet again is strong with those types. They’re just trying to cover for being crypto white nationalists (and in some cases not so crypto).

I’d say the only other distinct trait of Libertarianism compaired to either Republicanism or Conservatism is that Libertarianism is pretty much the go to cheerleader for Laissez-faire, Anarcho-capitalism as pancenta for literally everything and doubbling down on plutocratic, late stage capitalism for all things in life. That and being able to have the unfettered right to kill someone for the “crime” of accidentally bumping into them or their backpack in the street because “hostile action”… or so it appears that seems to be the common argument I have heard from them.

That said the inconsistency in which they would apply this so called reality is tellingly selfish and hypocritical from them and their desire to remove all government organized institutions that ensure the stability and functions of society are stupidly dangerous and dangerously stupid and would allow for a literal waste-land of crime, exploitation and human rights abuses the likes of which we scarcely ever see. I mean heck their notions and ideology on policy would basically remove organizations made to track and combat human trafficking and sex slavery; and in turn their would be no means to combat such atrocities and said atrocities and the criminal empires and networks that profit off said atrocity would run unchecked and grow further in reach, power, strength and profit.

Every time I encounter Libertarians and hear them talk about Libertarianism: I think about how they will end up turning the world into a rusty, leaking mad house under the sea we know as Rapture from Bioshock. Which makes sense, given that the Bioshock series is a rather scathing deconstruction of Libertarianism, in particular Ayn Rand’s brand of Libertariansm.

That said the inconsistency in which they would apply this so called reality is tellingly selfish and hypocritical from them and their desire to remove all government organized institutions that ensure the stability and functions of society are stupidly dangerous and dangerously stupid and would allow for a literal waste-land of crime, exploitation and human rights abuses the likes of which we scarcely ever see.

I disagree. I think we see it all the time, in places like Somalia and Syria where the state has collapsed and there is no functioning government to speak of.

If these assholes had their way, the US would become a failed state just like them.

Well, not quite. Two orders of magnitude larger, and with loose nukes …

@Tactical Progressive

That and being able to have the unfettered right to kill someone for the “crime” of accidentally bumping into them or their backpack in the street because “hostile action”… or so it appears that seems to be the common argument I have heard from them.

Ah yes, the vaunted “Non-Aggression Principle” that libertarians claim make them so much more moral than other philosophies, but which is not so much a principle designed to prevent violence as one designed to justify violence.

“If you touch My Stuff, I get to kill you and call you the aggressor.”

Libertarianism, at its core, is a toddler screaming “Mine” while brandishing a gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.