New Yorker article - "The Rage of the Incels"

[KidsHappen]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels

I was watching a Nightline episode which mentioned a documentary called, "Trumpland: Kill All Normies". So I went to youttube to watch that which lead to a wiki article on the incel movement and eventually this article. I don't know where I have been but this is the first I have ever heard of this. What's weird is that even though I was not aware of this movement I have been aware of an underlying anger and hatred of women in a certain segment of men for at least the past ten years. When I talked to people about it they called me paranoid so in a way it is a relief to know that this does exist and it has a name. On the other hand, I find it quiet alarming.

I am posting this in hopes of making people aware and maybe opening a discussion about the matter.

[Carol in Cal.]

I'm seeing this 'sense' among guys who aren't incells but who are very quick and anxious to put women down viciously as a group.  It's kind of alarming.

[Farrar]

I haven't read the article yet, but one of the things I think those of us who have boys should be aware of is to be specifically talking to our kids about the ways in which video gamers, sports fans, and other heavily masculine communities on the internet often become havens for these ideas and how to spot them and specifically recognize the problems with them. I think it can start small for young people and seem reasonable at first, especially when you begin by forging a bond or just following someone who likes your favorite game or team. So when that someone shares a story of when a woman was unfair, a young man thinks, that's sucks, and they feel for them. And slowly that turns into all women are terrible. And that they're owed something for their efforts. Even if you don't allow your boys online much, one day they won't be at home and they need to know how toxic and wrong this hatred of women is and how easy it can be to get swept up in it by going by degrees.

[Sneezyone]

I’ve been aware of this movement for a while now but I see quite a bit of overlap with other rage-filled movements of people who want to lash out at minorities and immigrants. The entitlement mentality is a scourge.

[LMD]

Yes, these guys are sick. They see women/sex as a resource to be evenly distributed by the government.

It fascinating really, they have developed a whole lore and ideology. There's heaps of articles about how they look up to elliot rodgers (some of that is no doubt internet sh*tposting, some of it seems worryingly sincere)

Then there's the MGTOWs who are next level incels, who have decided to forgo relationships with women (cos women are b*tches who just spend their money)

I think there's always been a certain young male entitlement and restlessness, and it's always been easy to blame/take it out on women. I think that - amongst other things - identity politics, p0rn and egging each other on on social media exacerbates it.

[Ausmumof3]

I’d dismiss this as sensationalist except I have seen the comments on news articles etc that reflect these kind of attitudes.  

I do agree this is not some new thing.  There have always been men like this it’s just the internet gives them a voice and a way to find people who think the same way.

[Carol in Cal.]

5 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I’d dismiss this as sensationalist except I have seen the comments on news articles etc that reflect these kind of attitudes.  

I do agree this is not some new thing.  There have always been men like this it’s just the internet gives them a voice and a way to find people who think the same way.

I think there is a former level of embarrassment that has been stripped off now, and that is troubling.

[DesertBlossom]

I'd bet money that every single one of these men have porn addictions and that porn exacerbates this sense of entitlement. When real life women don't respond to them the way porn has taught them that women should, it's going to fuel their anger.

[Farrar]

I think this is new in a way. The internet is such a wild factor. A couple of decades ago, if someone had these feelings, there was no community to validate and intensify them and encourage the man to act out in this particular way. There have always been men who were abusive, dismissive, hateful, etc. toward women. But this particular strain and manifestation does seem like a new thing to me. I mean, can you imagine an adult, unmarried virgin in the age before the internet saying some of these things and getting any traction for them at a bar in the 80's or 90's? I can't, not exactly. Some aspects, yes. But the whole package? The almost proud to have always been rejected thing? The vocal self-hatred and loathing? I don't see it.

[Ausmumof3]

3 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I think this is new in a way. The internet is such a wild factor. A couple of decades ago, if someone had these feelings, there was no community to validate and intensify them and encourage the man to act out in this particular way. There have always been men who were abusive, dismissive, hateful, etc. toward women. But this particular strain and manifestation does seem like a new thing to me. I mean, can you imagine an adult, unmarried virgin in the age before the internet saying some of these things and getting any traction for them at a bar in the 80's or 90's? I can't, not exactly. Some aspects, yes. But the whole package? The almost proud to have always been rejected thing? The vocal self-hatred and loathing? I don't see it.

Yep.  The internet has allowed all kinds of people to connect with other people like them and in most cases that’s a good thing.  For example, I don’t know too many real life classical homeschoolers.  But for certain groups it definitely enables a very unhealthy dynamic.  

[LucyStoner]

5 hours ago, Farrar said:

I haven't read the article yet, but one of the things I think those of us who have boys should be aware of is to be specifically talking to our kids about the ways in which video gamers, sports fans, and other heavily masculine communities on the internet often become havens for these ideas and how to spot them and specifically recognize the problems with them. I think it can start small for young people and seem reasonable at first, especially when you begin by forging a bond or just following someone who likes your favorite game or team. So when that someone shares a story of when a woman was unfair, a young man thinks, that's sucks, and they feel for them. And slowly that turns into all women are terrible. And that they're owed something for their efforts. Even if you don't allow your boys online much, one day they won't be at home and they need to know how toxic and wrong this hatred of women is and how easy it can be to get swept up in it by going by degrees.

 

This is very important.  I feel like fairly young kids need the tools to start pushing back on this sort of stuff.  

[Bluegoat]

I tend to agree that porn and the ability to connect on the internet are related.  Also - I am hesitant to assume this is really a sizeable movement.  I think elements of it are more widespread, but that doesn't mean al those manifestations are people who swallow the whole shebang.

I also think it's important to consider all the elements that may be contributing.  Aside from internet porn, I wonder about reduced social skills ad opportunities related to internet etc.  I think there are assumptions that come out of the sexual revolution and consumer based sexualisation  the idea that- we'll all be free to have lots of sex without being oppressed by outdated religious bunk, for example - except the fact is, lots of people actually don't get much sex even though they'd like to, which is sometimes not really understood by people who've never had that issue.  If you didn't know better pop culture tells us people are having sex willy-nilly, and sexualised depictions are all over the place.

And right along side the incels seem to accept that very externalised view of sex as a kind of thing you exchange, rather than as a sort of relational intimacy, which comes out of that same period.  A lot of these guys seem to be into Skeptic/New Atheist circles too and so on the one hand are dismissive of any moral approaches to sexuality and instead embrace a sort of supposedly scientific evolutionary behaviourism approach.

Edited March 23, 2019 by Bluegoat

[LucyStoner]

31 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I tend to agree that porn and the ability to connect on the internet are related.  Also - I am hesitant to assume this is really a sizeable movement.  I think elements of it are more widespread, but that doesn't mean al those manifestations are people who swallow the whole shebang.

I also think it's important to consider all the elements that may be contributing.  Aside from internet porn, I wonder about reduced social skills ad opportunities related to internet etc.  I think there are assumptions that come out of the sexual revolution and consumer based sexualisation  the idea that- we'll all be free to have lots of sex without being oppressed by outdated religious bunk, for example - except the fact is, lots of people actually don't get much sex even though they'd like to, which is sometimes not really understood by people who've never had that issue.  If you didn't know better pop culture tells us people are having sex willy-nilly, and sexualised depictions are all over the place.

And right along side the incels seem to accept that very externalised view of sex as a kind of thing you exchange, rather than as a sort of relational intimacy, which comes out of that same period.  A lot of these guys seem to be into Skeptic/New Atheist circles too and so on the one hand are dismissive of any moral approaches to sexuality and instead embrace a sort of supposedly scientific evolutionary behaviourism approach.

 

I’ve observed the same transactional view of sex among some young religious conservatives as well.  Paired with a sense that women’s bodies are something a man (husband or otherwise) is entitled to access.  It’s all rooted in the control of women and the disregard for women as people with bodily autonomy.  For the record, I definitely see it in the same demographics as you do as well, I just don’t think it is an attitude exclusive to that demographic.  Different rationalizations, same shitty view of women.  

Edited March 23, 2019 by LucyStoner

[purpleowl]

We had a shooting at a yoga studio here back in November. Two women died. The shooter was motivated by "incel" ideology. 

It's sickening and scary.

[Bluegoat]

25 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I’ve observed the same transactional view of sex among some young religious conservatives as well.  Paired with a sense that women’s bodies are something a man (husband or otherwise) is entitled to access.  It’s all rooted in the control of women and the disregard for women as people with bodily autonomy.  For the record, I definitely see it in the same demographics as you do as well, I just don’t think it is an attitude exclusive to that demographic.  Different rationalizations, same shitty view of women.  

 

Yeah, it's interesting.  I've tended to see that as related to an inadequate theology of the physical world and human interdependency in a lot of evangelical churches.  That type of Christianity tends to veer very closely to a kind of anti-materialism, as well as being very influenced by American individualism - it's missing a lot of the theological structures that are used in more mainline forms of Christianity to guard against those things.

I tend to think of the incels in particular as coming out of the secular framework, but of course they are related, there is a reason they spring up in the same culture.

[Bluegoat]

5 minutes ago, StellaM said:

The idea that women are commodities, and that men are entitled to those commodities, is not confined to the right, the alt right or white nationalism. 

The vast majority of leftist men, for example, are pro porn (commodification of women's bodies) and pro prostitution ( more commodification of women's bodies).

It's a very broad cultural problem, that manifests in different ways depending on context. 

 

 

 

Quite a few leftist women too.

I've started to wonder recently if part of the problem is that our thinking is so very conditioned by our economic model, which seems to mediate how we see relationships. I was thinking about the consent model for sexual interactions as it's pushed on campuses and such, and I think one of the things that really bothers me about it is that its basis also seems to be this very commodity/contract view of sex.  I wonder if it isn't compounding the problem by reinforcing the way people conceptualise the whole thing.

[KidsHappen]

4 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Quite a few leftist women too.

I've started to wonder recently if part of the problem is that our thinking is so very conditioned by our economic model, which seems to mediate how we see relationships. I was thinking about the consent model for sexual interactions as it's pushed on campuses and such, and I think one of the things that really bothers me about it is that its basis also seems to be this very commodity/contract view of sex.  I wonder if it isn't compounding the problem by reinforcing the way people conceptualise the whole thing.

Could you elaborate on this? If not the consent model, then what? How else would we negotiate sexual relationship?

[KidsHappen]

5 hours ago, Dotwithaperiod said:

I first heard of incels because of Gamergate. I still have a tough time sorting out the different types and beliefs, but they’re definitely not something minor. Their whole pile of garbage is  eerily entwined with the alt-right and their beliefs of white nationalism, immigration, etc. Milo Yanappawhatever his name is  really cheered on and encouraged Gamergate, and his “mentor” was Steve Bannon.  

https://medium.com/s/trustissues/the-deadly-incel-movements-absurd-pop-culture-roots-e5bef93df2f5

Thanks so much for the additional article. I had not read this one yet but it pretty much confirms everything else I have read. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by KidsHappen

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, KidsHappen said:

Could you elaborate on this? If not the consent model, then what? How else would we negotiate sexual relationship?

Not the op but I think consent is like a bare minimum first step rather than the be all and end all it’s become.  Relationships should reinforce the value of the people in them not diminish it.  

[Bluegoat]

20 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

Could you elaborate on this? If not the consent model, then what? How else would we negotiate sexual relationship?

 

Well, it's not very satisfying, but I'm not really sure.

I am increasingly thinking that the whole underpinning of the consent, sexual interaction as a contract approach, is fatally flawed.  In part because as I said, it is reductive with regard to both sex and other people.  I think in a way you could compare it to what would happen if we viewed the parent child relationship as a contract - it would be horrible.

But I have also begun to wonder in terms of how it teaches people to interact on the level of discrete encounters.  It's almost like there is a kind of intellectual framework that has to be engaged through the whole thing.  Now, in reality, where it works, I think this actually stops happening - but the theory of the thing for people that care to talk about it is that the explicit enthusiastic consent business is always supposed to be the framework.  

In the end, I'm not sure that sex can be human or humane when our bodies and emotions are being negotiated as a kind of agreement or as if we ourselves are commodities we are bargaining with.

The constructs that I come up with that seem more adequate are in the end theological, but I daresay they wouldn't be able to pass muster in secular society these days.  

[Tanaqui]

I'm missing a step here, Bluegoat - why are you equating "consent" with "sexual interaction as a contract"?

[Ausmumof3]

8 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

I'm missing a step here, Bluegoat - why are you equating "consent" with "sexual interaction as a contract"?

Not the op but I guess it basically is a short term verbal contract that can be retracted at any time.  If you don’t have that in a court of law it’s rape.  

For me it needs to be about more than that.  There needs to be consideration of the feelings and wellbeing of both people and parties as human beings in the process.  Too many men still use terms like “scoring” or “getting some” or whatever else.

[Tanaqui]

...but protecting everybody's feeling and wellbeing are the entire point of making sure that your partner is really into what you're doing or proposing to do.

[Bluegoat]

Consent is based on a contract notion of sex, which at least in our society conceptualises that in terms of an exchange of a commodity.  Which is why sex work is seen as simply another version of the same thing by many people - they can't see a difference between people agreeing to have sex for personal reasons, and people agreeing to have sex for money. It's not so much because they don't really understand sex work and what that agreement would involve, which is what people tend to think is going on.  Rather, it's because their view of the relation in instances that have not been monetised is the same as that for sex work.  (I am not saying that such people feel the same about a spouse as they would about a prostitute, they likely do know in an intuitive way they are a really different thing.  But as far as how they think about it, not so much.)

 And while the goal may be to protect people, as I said above, I think the framework ultimately undermines that goal.  A commodification of people, in any worker relationship, end up being destructive, and it's still true wen there is no exchange of money.  Human relationships, and I would say the human community as a whole, is let down by a contract view of our relations.  If the idea of the social contract is inadequate for healthy community, it's sure as heck going to be inadequate for sexual or romantic relationships.

I have come to wonder if that conceptualisation may not actually negatively impact people in trying to develop intimate relationships, maybe especially young people.   

[DesertBlossom]

2 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

I'm missing a step here, Bluegoat - why are you equating "consent" with "sexual interaction as a contract"?

I took it mean reducing a sexual encounter to just a physical transaction without any sort of relationship, and without regard for the other person's feelings. There are some who are okay with that kind of hookup culture but I think most people expect some sort of relationship and mutual attraction before there is a sexual encounter.

Maybe I am wrong, but it sounds like these incel guys aren't upset because they can't find girlfriends. They are upset because their mysogynistic, abrupt and crude attempts to pick up women haven't been effective. The incels basically expect free prostitutes and are incensed because that they haven't gotten what they feel is owed them.

[Tanaqui]

Back up - you haven't answered my question, Bluegoat. Simply stating "Consent is based on a contract notion of sex" neither answers my question nor actually explains your position.

[Tanaqui]

2 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

I took it mean reducing a sexual encounter to just a physical transaction without any sort of relationship, and without regard for the other person's feelings. There are some who are okay with that kind of hookup culture but I think most people expect some sort of relationship and mutual attraction before there is a sexual encounter.

Maybe I am wrong, but it sounds like these incel guys aren't upset because they can't find girlfriends. They are upset because their mysogynistic, abrupt and crude attempts to pick up women haven't been effective. The incels basically expect free prostitutes and are incensed because that they haven't gotten what they feel is owed them.

 

I've been aware of these folks for a while. I wouldn't say I've made any sort of in-depth study of them - they're nauseating, so no! - but while I think you've got the crux of it, their root issue is deeper. These guys might talk about their pathetic lack of sex life (their words, not mine) but what really gets their goat is that women have any rights at all. (Also minorities, gays, LGBT folks - they're equal opportunity haters.)

They do think they're owed sex - they also think they're owed media that only represents exactly them, jobs, prestige, money, power, cultural domination....

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Eliana said:

Consent isn't intrinsically about contracts or even about sex.

Teaching our kids that they can say 'no' to a hug or 'stop' to tickling is basic consent education, and neither of those has anything to do with either contracts or sex.

Centering consent isn't the problem I think you are trying to name.  

Where consent and 'sex work' intersect is when 'sex work' is evaluated based solely on whether the 'workers' are participating voluntarily.   (Leaving aside questions of how free that consent might be.). 

We can center consent and still bring in other important factors by which we can evaluate the individual and societal impact of specific sexual choices.

 

And equally teaching our kids to respect a no or a please stop.  Unfortunately even as kids there is often a blind eye turned to the kind of play that could be seen as roughhousing or harmless but isn’t respectful to everyone involved.

[Ausmumof3]

6 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

...but protecting everybody's feeling and wellbeing are the entire point of making sure that your partner is really into what you're doing or proposing to do.

Well that is going beyond “consent” to “enthusiastic consent” which is better.  But I think it’s more nuanced than that.  Consent is still probably the best model from a legal perspective but teaching kid about the potential emotional and psychological stuff that can go along with a sexual relationship might be another important angle.  But then another cynical part of me to be honest thinks some people and attitudes just aren’t fixable by education though it makes me pretty sad to think that. 

I’m Christian and conservative so just saying that to acknowledge my biases. I do think marriage goes a long way toward recognising in a legal way that sex has long term impact on all parties.  (The fact that I even use the word parties shows how legally I’m thinking I guess). I think these things were known before birth control but we figured birth control did away with all long term potential harm.  Turns out it doesn’t always, just mitigates the physical harm.  Marriage is still not the only answer because we all know of marriages in the past or even present where one partner believes that sex on demand is now a legally granted entitlement or something stupid.  

I really don’t think the answer lies in law at all really but in everyone respecting others as much as themselves and not putting their own needs first and foremost in a relationship.  But that’s not something that can be legislated and can only be partially developed by education. 

[Bluegoat]

11 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

Back up - you haven't answered my question, Bluegoat. Simply stating "Consent is based on a contract notion of sex" neither answers my question nor actually explains your position.

 

Ok, I think I'm not quite getting where the disconnect is.  Wen we talk about consent, it's essentially a kind of contractural agreement, especially the way it's being presented in recent years.  I agree to this, not that, etc.  It's a type of verbal contract that is predicated on the same kind of thinking that an agreement about, say, I will trade you my extra apples if you will mow my lawn might be.  It neither implies nor requires any further kind of care or fellow feeling, it's a very discrete sort of encounter.  Quite a lot like money for sex.   There is also a kind of implication of a sort of free-market of exchange, which tends not to look at systems but instead sees as individuals as able to really exercise complete or at least significant choice within this legal exchange.

When there isn't consent, this is conceptualised as a kind of breach of contract or whatever you'd call acting without a contract.  

This is't particularly my position, btw - in fact I oppose it. But it's a very common way to see people talking about consent and I would say underlies a lot of the thinking.  As does the way people think about marriage and divorce in many cases - two individuals who agree to live together under a certain st of rules, or who dissolve the legal contract when it no longer suits them.

I'd contrast that to being a parent, for example, where people don't seem to have the same sense, even in instances like adoption or with adult children and their parents.  We tend to think less in terms of a contract, and more in terms of ideas like connection, obligation, self-giving, or duty.  I would say that it's a kind of organic or relational way of thinking, as opposed to a legal or contractural model.

I'm not sure if that answers your question any more clearly.

 

[Sneezyone]

Isn't adoption governed by contract? The biological berthing of children may give rise to a moral obligation for some but it is governed by legalities as well. We know every parent doesn't feel a moral or ethical obligation to treat illnesses or provide food/shelter for their children but they do have a legal one regardless or their relative morals or ethics. In many places in the world, the child to parent obligation is treated as a legal one as well, with children being forced to provide elder care etc. by the state. Is the suggestion that we should merely shame people into feeling obligations that they may or may not feel (regardless of the known consequences of that) and have zero legal enforcement mechanisms? That is a bizarre way to govern a society. I've no objection to individuals overlaying their own sense of ethical or moral obligations but I'm not sure why it would be a good idea for civil society to rely solely on the kindness of people's hearts to do the 'right' thing.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well that is going beyond “consent” to “enthusiastic consent” which is better.  But I think it’s more nuanced than that.  Consent is still probably the best model from a legal perspective but teaching kid about the potential emotional and psychological stuff that can go along with a sexual relationship might be another important angle.  But then another cynical part of me to be honest thinks some people and attitudes just aren’t fixable by education though it makes me pretty sad to think that. 

I’m Christian and conservative so just saying that to acknowledge my biases. I do think marriage goes a long way toward recognising in a legal way that sex has long term impact on all parties.  (The fact that I even use the word parties shows how legally I’m thinking I guess). I think these things were known before birth control but we figured birth control did away with all long term potential harm.  Turns out it doesn’t always, just mitigates the physical harm.  Marriage is still not the only answer because we all know of marriages in the past or even present where one partner believes that sex on demand is now a legally granted entitlement or something stupid.  

I really don’t think the answer lies in law at all really but in everyone respecting others as much as themselves and not putting their own needs first and foremost in a relationship.  But that’s not something that can be legislated and can only be partially developed by education. 

 

Having gone through about 7 years, when I was married, with zero libido, I find the concept of "enthusiastic consent" a little difficult to deal with.

[Bluegoat]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Isn't adoption governed by contract? The biological berthing of children may give rise to a moral obligation for some but it is governed by legalities as well. We know every parent doesn't feel a moral or ethical obligation to treat illnesses or provide food/shelter for their children but they do have a legal one regardless or their relative morals or ethics. In many places in the world, the child to parent obligation is treated as a legal one as well, with children being forced to provide elder care etc. by the state. Is the suggestion that we should merely shame people into feeling obligations that they may or may not feel (regardless of the known consequences of that) and have zero legal enforcement mechanisms? That is a bizarre way to govern a society. I've no objection to individuals overlaying their own sense of ethical or moral obligations but I'm not sure why it would be a good idea for civil society to rely solely on the kindness of people's hearts to do the 'right' thing.

 

Yes, it is, but I don't really think anyone conceptualises the contract as the reality of the thing.  The kind of obligations and relations even then are something that go well beyond a contract.  Or, on the other hand, in those cases where children legally cu themselves off from parents who are in some way inadequate - we don't just see that kind of situation as a failure to live up to a contract.  THe thing itself is understood to be something much deeper, the construct a kind of formality used to express that - one that will never be perfect.

Whereas I would say that quite a lot of people do seem to think that the contract is in some way what constitutes the marriage, even when they don't behave that way in their own marriage, that is the model they use to construct their ideas when they talk about the rights and obligations pertaining to marriage in society.  And even more so around less formal sexual relationships - there is a tendency to see consent not just as one way to deal with what is actually a very much deeper and more complex sort of interaction - and because of that a way that has limits - but as the real basis of the interaction.

[EmseB]

48 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Ok, I think I'm not quite getting where the disconnect is.  Wen we talk about consent, it's essentially a kind of contractural agreement, especially the way it's being presented in recent years.  I agree to this, not that, etc.  It's a type of verbal contract that is predicated on the same kind of thinking that an agreement about, say, I will trade you my extra apples if you will mow my lawn might be.  It neither implies nor requires any further kind of care or fellow feeling, it's a very discrete sort of encounter.  Quite a lot like money for sex.   There is also a kind of implication of a sort of free-market of exchange, which tends not to look at systems but instead sees as individuals as able to really exercise complete or at least significant choice within this legal exchange.

When there isn't consent, this is conceptualised as a kind of breach of contract or whatever you'd call acting without a contract.  

This is't particularly my position, btw - in fact I oppose it. But it's a very common way to see people talking about consent and I would say underlies a lot of the thinking.  As does the way people think about marriage and divorce in many cases - two individuals who agree to live together under a certain st of rules, or who dissolve the legal contract when it no longer suits them.

I'd contrast that to being a parent, for example, where people don't seem to have the same sense, even in instances like adoption or with adult children and their parents.  We tend to think less in terms of a contract, and more in terms of ideas like connection, obligation, self-giving, or duty.  I would say that it's a kind of organic or relational way of thinking, as opposed to a legal or contractural model.

I'm not sure if that answers your question any more clearly.

 

But if sex is viewed simply as the satisfaction of a biological urge that is undertaken with no emotional, spiritual (or whatever you want to call it) component, then it is really difficult to view it outside of the consent/transactional model. What else could there be?  This, I think, is also reflected in the idea that in a good portion of society today, any sex is okay, and there is no real "sin" or anything verboten in terms of sex except for assault/rape. Anything goes as long as both people are willing, and the idea of sex being some sort of union or commitment between two people is considered laughable. It's simply mutual self-gratification. And to that end, the consent model is the only thing that (sort of) works.

[Sneezyone]

27 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

Yes, it is, but I don't really think anyone conceptualises the contract as the reality of the thing.  The kind of obligations and relations even then are something that go well beyond a contract.  Or, on the other hand, in those cases where children legally cu themselves off from parents who are in some way inadequate - we don't just see that kind of situation as a failure to live up to a contract.  THe thing itself is understood to be something much deeper, the construct a kind of formality used to express that - one that will never be perfect.

Whereas I would say that quite a lot of people do seem to think that the contract is in some way what constitutes the marriage, even when they don't behave that way in their own marriage, that is the model they use to construct their ideas when they talk about the rights and obligations pertaining to marriage in society.  And even more so around less formal sexual relationships - there is a tendency to see consent not just as one way to deal with what is actually a very much deeper and more complex sort of interaction - and because of that a way that has limits - but as the real basis of the interaction.

 

I see a conflation of civil and moral/ethical here that shouldn't, I think, be the purview of the state. First and foremost, as concerns sex, the state is concerned with criminal acts as defined by statutes (with elements that must be proven). How do you propose enforcement of this moral construct?

Edited March 25, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Bluegoat]

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But if sex is viewed simply as the satisfaction of a biological urge that is undertaken with no emotional, spiritual (or whatever you want to call it) component, then it is really difficult to view it outside of the consent/transactional model. What else could there be?  This, I think, is also reflected in the idea that in a good portion of society today, any sex is okay, and there is no real "sin" or anything verboten in terms of sex except for assault/rape. Anything goes as long as both people are willing, and the idea of sex being some sort of union or commitment between two people is considered laughable. It's simply mutual self-gratification. And to that end, the consent model is the only thing that (sort of) works.

 

That is the crux of it, I think.  Anything else gets into saying there is value or meaning to sex that is intrinsic, even if the people involved don't agree or care, and that's not acceptable.  But I don't really think that viewpoint is robust.  I don't think people will find, in the end, that the consent model will accomplish what they want, or the MeeToo movement, because the problems come out of realities that are in one way or another intrinsic to human sexuality and human relationships, which can't be adequately captured in a legalistic framework.

And then, once you start seeing that framework as the reality, and reasoning from it as if it contains first principles, you get even farther from the reality.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

That is the crux of it, I think.  Anything else gets into saying there is value or meaning to sex that is intrinsic, even if the people involved don't agree or care, and that's not acceptable.  But I don't really think that viewpoint is robust.  I don't think people will find, in the end, that the consent model will accomplish what they want, or the MeeToo movement, because the problems come out of realities that are in one way or another intrinsic to human sexuality and human relationships, which can't be adequately captured in a legalistic framework.

And then, once you start seeing that framework as the reality, and reasoning from it as if it contains first principles, you get even farther from the reality.

 

I haven't seen anyone suggest, here, that a legalistic framework is the ceiling, but a base. I've also yet to see any alternative 'floor' proposed.

[Bluegoat]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I see a conflation of civil and moral/ethical here that shouldn't, I think, be the purview of the state. First and foremost, as concerns sex, the state is concerned with criminal acts as defined by statues (with elements that must be proven). How do you propose enforcement of this moral construct?

 

Yes, and I don't think the state, in this formal sense, has much capacity to do more about it.  But I don't think the state is really the problem, it's about what people think, how they understand themselves and their actions, and by the same token what society says and believes about those things.  Most social understanding isn't really through government, it's through other social mechanisms of one kind or another - customs, taboos, religious practices, normative behaviours, what people tell their kids, what they tell each other, what they see in literature and the arts...

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I haven't seen anyone suggest, here, that a legalistic framework is the ceiling, but a base. I've also yet to see any alternative 'floor' proposed.

 

I do't know what people here think, though I'd not necessarily expect it to be representative.

But as a base, I'd suggest it's wholly inadequate, that was rather my point.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I do't know what people here think, though I'd not necessarily expect it to be representative.

But as a base, I'd suggest it's wholly inadequate, that was rather my point.

 

Again, what is your alternative? Which moral standard (a Christian one, Buddhist one, atheist one, agnostic one, Muslim one) do you propose in place of a legal base? It's hard to truly think through, critique or even respond to your ideas without knowing exactly what you mean/propose.

[LMD]

On 3/24/2019 at 3:42 PM, Ausmumof3 said:

Not the op but I think consent is like a bare minimum first step rather than the be all and end all it’s become.  Relationships should reinforce the value of the people in them not diminish it.  

Yes I agree. It's the viewing of consent as a transaction. Gaining consent as buying intimate access to another person - the commodity being traded, that is the problem. 

This dehumanises people into into a buy/sell dichotomy, which is invariably exacerbated by power structures (ie, the less powerful become the 'seller' and therefore the consent is coerced and not actual consent at all).

Bluegoat isn't saying to trash consent, come on. Discussing the informing worldview and limitations is not the same as saying it's total garbage and here's my perfect proposal.

I agree that enthusiastic consent is better, with an understanding of structural power dynamics and and emphasising emotional needs/connection just as much as physical.

[LMD]

Speaking of power structures (and I know it's besides the point, sorry) I couldn't finish that medium article after she talked about The Matrix being directed by two women. I don't want to get into a 'thing' here, but the Wachowskis were not in any way claiming to be trans when they benefited from the very stark male privilege in Hollywood and were signed on to make that movie, during filming, when accepting awards or for years afterwards. Implying that the directors understood systematic oppression as 'women' when they made that movie, therefore incels using it as a metaphor is ironic, is just ridiculous, imo.

Edited March 25, 2019 by LMD

[Sneezyone]

50 minutes ago, LMD said:

Bluegoat isn't saying to trash consent, come on. Discussing the informing worldview and limitations is not the same as saying it's total garbage and here's my perfect proposal.

 

But she has, repeatedly, trashed the concept of consent. Hence my desire to clarify exactly where she’s going with this and whose or which standard she would like to impose in addition to or in place of that one.

[Garga]

These incel guys freak me out.  They terrify me.  What is wrong with people? It feels literally evil, like these men are in an utter wasteland spiritually.  There is nothing good about them; they're totally depraved in their minds.  

It's really hard for me not to respond with hatred and it's because I am so very scared of people like them.  

 

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Garga

[Sneezyone]

52 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

She doesn't mean or propose anything - it's just discussing an idea.

 

Critique away. I just find the whole critique with no actual suggestions routine unproductive, especially when it appears there are those who find some other construct better/more palatable and cannot or will not articulate what that construct is or should be.

ETA: Some if the comments made seem perilously close, to me, to burying consent beneath a blanket of marital duty and obligation.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Ravin]

11 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Well that is going beyond “consent” to “enthusiastic consent” which is better.  But I think it’s more nuanced than that.  Consent is still probably the best model from a legal perspective but teaching kid about the potential emotional and psychological stuff that can go along with a sexual relationship might be another important angle.  But then another cynical part of me to be honest thinks some people and attitudes just aren’t fixable by education though it makes me pretty sad to think that. 

I’m Christian and conservative so just saying that to acknowledge my biases. I do think marriage goes a long way toward recognising in a legal way that sex has long term impact on all parties.  (The fact that I even use the word parties shows how legally I’m thinking I guess). I think these things were known before birth control but we figured birth control did away with all long term potential harm.  Turns out it doesn’t always, just mitigates the physical harm.  Marriage is still not the only answer because we all know of marriages in the past or even present where one partner believes that sex on demand is now a legally granted entitlement or something stupid.  

I really don’t think the answer lies in law at all really but in everyone respecting others as much as themselves and not putting their own needs first and foremost in a relationship.  But that’s not something that can be legislated and can only be partially developed by education. 

 

Someone may already have addressed this, but whether you look at single-transaction consent models, or marriage as an institution, "everything is a contract" is what modern Western society boils it all down to. Marriage is, and always has been, a contract. It used to be mostly about property and inheritance and legitimacy of heirs. Having a religious seal of approval for that was the main contribution of Christianity to the relevant body of law governing it in Feudal Medieval Europe. Women were commodities, with few property rights of their own, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece. Tribes who gave women more rights had invariably seen their customs and laws stamped out by Rome (under the Empire or the Church).

Even with women acknowledged as persons capable of owning property in their own right regardless of marital status, a whole lot about marriage remains an economic contract, even if control of women's bodies is no longer explicitly part of that contract. If sex belongs only to marriage, then sex is part of the contract, implicitly if not explicitly.

The whole Incel thing comes down to entitled misogynists failing to see women as fully realized human beings. It shouldn't be surprising that this mindset can be found in a capitalist society with a long history of patriarchy. Capitalism, at its core, is about treating human potential as a commodity, in the form of "labor." As long as our economic system is predicated on treating the fundamental necessities of life as commodities to be bought and sold, there will continue to be efforts to commodify sex. After all, if all the other basics of human existence: food, water, shelter, medical care, etc., can be bought and sold, and a price can be put on nearly all other human activities ("labor"), why treat sex, love, and reproduction any differently? 

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, Ravin said:

 

Someone may already have addressed this, but whether you look at single-transaction consent models, or marriage as an institution, "everything is a contract" is what modern Western society boils it all down to. Marriage is, and always has been, a contract. It used to be mostly about property and inheritance and legitimacy of heirs. Having a religious seal of approval for that was the main contribution of Christianity to the relevant body of law governing it in Feudal Medieval Europe. Women were commodities, with few property rights of their own, going all the way back to ancient Rome and Greece. Tribes who gave women more rights had invariably seen their customs and laws stamped out by Rome (under the Empire or the Church).

Even with women acknowledged as persons capable of owning property in their own right regardless of marital status, a whole lot about marriage remains an economic contract, even if control of women's bodies is no longer explicitly part of that contract. If sex belongs only to marriage, then sex is part of the contract, implicitly if not explicitly.

The whole Incel thing comes down to entitled misogynists failing to see women as fully realized human beings. It shouldn't be surprising that this mindset can be found in a capitalist society with a long history of patriarchy. Capitalism, at its core, is about treating human potential as a commodity, in the form of "labor." As long as our economic system is predicated on treating the fundamental necessities of life as commodities to be bought and sold, there will continue to be efforts to commodify sex. After all, if all the other basics of human existence: food, water, shelter, medical care, etc., can be bought and sold, and a price can be put on nearly all other human activities ("labor"), why treat sex, love, and reproduction any differently? 

In a society without birth control or social security marriage was somewhat of a protection for women.  It had definite limitations as I acknowledged in my post.  The outcome for women who had children without it has never been very positive historically.  The lack of rights to conduct business etc are and have been a problem for many cultures through the years though not all.  

I’m not here saying the legal view of marriage is the only answer.  However a commitment ceremony of some description goes some way toward acknowledging there’s more to sex than just short term physical pleasure.  

In fact our country turns any relationship that lasts more than two years into a kind of legal thing with all kinds of financial implications for the participants.  Again it’s aiming to be protective in some way.  But probably does somehow enforce the concept of sex as legal commodity.

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

The only difference between incels and some other men who feel entitled to female bodies is that incels aren't prepared to pay. 

That's the single difference between a john and an incel - a john thinks he's owed sex, and that exchange of money entitles him to sex, incels think they are owed sex, but they don't want to pay. 

Even in marriage (and out of it) there is an assumption that women's bodies are an exploitable resource.

Greer's argument centres around absolute and conditional freedoms - her point being that the ability of heterosexual women in relationships to consent is conditional, not absolute. I tend to think she is right - read any 'relationship advice' and see what it has to say about the long term 'withdrawal' of sex, as if sex is labor, and is being withdrawn as in a strike. 

Anyway, I just don't see a hard division between incels and the society incels exist in, nor between incels and what plenty commonly accept and promote. Are they are the extreme end of a spectrum ? Of course. But they are not different in kind.

Yes this. And even though these extremes are so frightening the pervasive attitude through society is more scary because it’s everywhere and less easy to call out when you see it because it’s less obvious.  As an a analogy these guys are like the neo nazis of a world that’s already got a problem with racism.  They are the visible plant growing from the buried seed.

[Farrar]

What's difficult for me to fully understand - getting back to the incels - is that they *don't* see sex as transactional, not really. They find the transactional nature of sex workers deeply offensive. And while - as others have conjectured and I generally think it likely - they may have formed their ideas about sex, love, and women by consuming p*rn - they seem to be looking for that connection that some people here are complaining they're not looking for. But at the same time, they're engaged in deep loathing of women and of themselves. The amount of time these guys talk about their own hideousness and need for plastic surgery is apparently off the charts. I've seen snippets in articles where they sound like stereotypical young women engaged in a "I'm fat" "No, I'M fat," conversation. They're a community that is so messed up - so filled with hate and internal contradictions. I think it's hard to pin them down with a simple, "they see women as objects" statement.

I don't know what the alternative to consent is either. Lots of legal frameworks for thinking about things don't solve the underlying problems they police, but I'm still glad they're there. For sex, we don't even fully have that floor. It seems like something worth working for.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Farrar

[Sneezyone]

52 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I just think consent is way more complex than is usually presented.

For example, consent only guards against the grossest of harms - it doesn't actually guard against most harms.

Either way, I am pretty sure a Canadian classicist musing on the net isn't a Trojan horse for - idk - the abolishing of rape in marriage laws or whatever.

 

I agree with you that it only guards against the most egregious harms but disagree that these musings on obligation and duty aren’t cover for a murkier view of marital rape.