incels misogyny MRA rape rape culture slut shaming warren farrell

“Rape is immensely less traumatizing than inceldom,” incel argues, demonstrating why he’s an incel

Let’s take another brief excursion to the forums, where one prolific poster is setting forth a slightly new version of an old incel folk belief — namely, that being raped is really much less traumatic than being an incel.

The women of today are unchaste whores who jump from penis to penis like it's nothing. Rape isn't a terrible crime, it is nothing more than a foid getting a penis when they didn't want it. A rape that causes no pregnancy, STDs, or lasting injury is legitimately no worse than petty theft or petty property damage (ie denting someone's car). Long term isolation and sexlessness on the other hand has legitimately proven to be at least as harmful to one's health as heavy smoking. So really, what's worse- a sterile, STD free man penetrating a foids hole for a few minutes (a hole which is designed to be penetrated, and a hole which see freely allows to be penetrated by numerous other men), or a decade+ of hardcore inceldom and loneliness- no sex, no hugs, no friends, no meaningful social interaction, no nothing

So many bad arguments here. Just because a women says yes to sex with particular men doesn’t mean she’s saying yet to every man who wants to, er, penetrate her hole. Nor does it mean that raping a “foid” is basically the equivalent to shoplifting or denting a person’s car.

Naturally, though, most of the commenters agree close to a hundred percent with Mr. Deleted Member.

“PIV rape should be a mild annoyance to women at worst,” offers BiryaniCel. “Vaginas were meant to be penetrated. Anal rape is traumatizing though.”

“[C]omplaints of sexual abuse or molestation should only be taken seriously in case of the victim being children or male,” adds another since-deleted commenter.

In a followup comment, the same commenter offers up the thought that

If rape was so traumatizing, and if they’re really avert to it, then women wouldn’t dresses sluttish, nor they demeanor wouldn’t be so provocative and uncaring. the only aversion they’ve is to low-value males.

Sign. This belief about “dressing sluttish” — which is held by many backwards people outside the incelosphere — is why we needed the slut walks in the first place.

“My theory,” explains Divergent_Integral,

is that a large part of the psychological trauma caused by rape stems from societal imprinting that it’s literally the worst thing that can happen to a foid (short of murder). If a foid were to be brought up in a social vacuum, she herself would never come up with the notion that rape is the most awful and traumatizing thing possible. If anything, such a foid would view rape as a minor inconvenience at the most.

This is strikingly similar to Men’s Rights guru Warren Farrell’s take on incest (that is, sexual abuse) — that girls are traumatized by it largely because “girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt.”

In another comment, Divergent_Integral adds,

Rape can accurately be defined as ugly men having sex. Period. No need to invoke concepts like consent or force. For even if a foid initially concedes to having sex with an unattractive male, she will soon regret it (or her girlfriends will do so for her) and “realize” that her consent was given either under duress or under false pretext. That is to say, she will redefine her sexual encounter with the ugly male as rape; regardless of what actually happened.

A commenter called Mainländer has this to say:

I suffered so much at the hands of women that my capacity to empathize with them is limited to extremely bad stuff. If a foid is tortured to death, yeah, I’ll feel bad for her. But expecting me to feel bad for some slut who drank too much in some party and some normie with a face below her standards fucked her, when most foids have a “rape kink”? I just can’t take it seriously.

In another comment, Mainlander twists the argument into a justification for statutory rape.

If you think about it, one of feminism’s main goals is making sure normie and below men can’t have any ways of ascending outside of betabuxxing some old roastie.

Can’t ascend with drunken foids, can’t try to just be first with super young foids, etc.

All I can really say at this point is “ugh.”

Follow me on Mastodon.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.

Notify of

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fred B-C
9 months ago

@Surplus: I think you are downplaying the role of coercive or top-down change, though I agree that it’s vital to remember that those changes can’t command transformation.

First of all, it is actually true that changing circumstances can sometimes just change minds. When the civil rights movement won in the South, it’s not like they got a utopia, but lots of civil rights leaders reported whites thanking them for freeing them from hate, and overt segregationist sentiment got a lot less popular. Conservatives tend to follow the lagging edge of social change, and policy can push forward that lagging edge and catch them in the wake. You will then get some people who, in that wake, choose to struggle and be reactionaries, but a lot of people will just quietly accept whatever the policy is.

That’s no reason to rely on that exclusively as an approach, but it is a reason to use that tool.

Second, and more importantly, a lot of the changes we’re concerned about aren’t just attitudinal.

We want changes to how wealth is spent and used. We want changes to collective support structures for families. We want the dismantling or reducing in power of coercive institutions. Some of that requires physical changes on the ground.

So it’s about a bit of both, but the changing of minds and hearts has to take a very central part.

@Kat: I am shocked, SHOCKED!, that a method of coercion mentioned by someone like Squack was historically deployed against women. (/s)  

Surplus to Requirements
Surplus to Requirements
9 months ago

Someone really didn’t want me catching up here today. As soon as I got belatedly done catching up comments on older articles and went to the new, Star Wars related post, someone shut off the power to my apartment for about half an hour.

The way I’ve been treated thus far today is unconscionable. I want to know who is behind all of these unfunny “pranks” and how to defend myself against them in the future. It should not take me over an hour and a half to catch up here!!!

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 months ago

Re: Force Feeding Suffragists

This was something colloquially called “The Cat and Mouse Act“. In reality the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-Health) Act [1913].

Initially hunger striking suffragists had been forced fed in prison. That though caused a public outcry when this was reported in the press.

So the new procedure was to wait until the hunger strikers were on the verge of death, then temporarily release them. The idea being they would then eat. But as soon as the women had recovered they were returned to prison; and the cycle began again.

The Suffragists produced some amazing graphic art to highlight the issue. Which illustrates just how awful force feeding actually is.

comment image

comment image

comment image

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 months ago

@ Vicky P

a level 3 tech support gal

And you have a Stetson!

I thought you were cool before, but that is just the icing on the cake.

Hmm, now I want cake.

Victorious Parasol
9 months ago


I do indeed! It was a birthday present for myself a year or so back. Mind you, I mostly wear it while I’m gardening, but since the Stetson started out as a working hat, I figure I’m just carrying on the tradition in my own way.

Plus I bought it shortly after Stetson announced they were no longer doing business with a retailer who was spreading ridiculous anti-vaccination poppycock.

Last edited 9 months ago by Victorious Parasol
GSS ex-noob
GSS ex-noob
9 months ago

Note that in the suffragette posters, the force-feeding tube doesn’t go in the mouth.

It’s in the nose.

Imagine how even more horrific that must have been. It’s like being waterboarded with gruel. More painful, and more likely to end up in your lungs. You can’t spit it out that way, either.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
9 months ago

@ gss ex-noob

The linked Manchester Guardian article quotes a Lancet medical report on the procedure. It’s pretty grim reading; and yes, there were lots of physical injuries, and choking was a real hazard.

(Article starts in the top right of the page)

9 months ago

We still use nasal feeding tubes when someone is having difficulty eating, although I’m pretty sure they are put in at least under sedation. There was a woman who had one in the four bed unit I was on for my hysterectomy, I think the only reason she was there – a gynaecalogy ward – was they had no suitable bed. She was fed through the tube for about twelve hours a day, but chatted away quite happily while it was going on. The tube was left all the time I was there (several days).

9 months ago

I had a nasal endoscopy some months ago (to look at the oesophagus, which was apparently just doing its thing and looking quite unperturbed as I was glad to learn); thanks to care, calm and the local anaesthetic it was merely unpleasant.
I don’t even want to think about what that could have been like without care and anaesthesia. The suffragists had more courage in one fingertip than I have in my whole body.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
%d bloggers like this: