New Yorker article - "The Rage of the Incels"

[Ravin]

Our duty of care to other human beings may be at the core of this. Incels, from what I understand of the subculture from secondary sources like the article posted by the OP, are a symptom of toxic masculinity. They have an unhealthy self-image as well as an unhealthy image of women. In my previous post I almost said something about them not recognizing women as fully realized human beings because they themselves are not fully realized human beings in many instances. I would not be shocked if many people sucked into the Incel subculture have borderline personalities, depression, or other serious issues. The idea that the reaction to not having one's own needs met is to disregard that others have needs as well just seems...sad and pathetic.

That said, these guys sound like the perfect market for sellers of s*x robots. So I'm sure capitalism will have a solution forthwith for the Incel problem.

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, Ravin said:

Our duty of care to other human beings may be at the core of this. Incels, from what I understand of the subculture from secondary sources like the article posted by the OP, are a symptom of toxic masculinity. They have an unhealthy self-image as well as an unhealthy image of women. In my previous post I almost said something about them not recognizing women as fully realized human beings because they themselves are not fully realized human beings in many instances. I would not be shocked if many people sucked into the Incel subculture have borderline personalities, depression, or other serious issues. The idea that the reaction to not having one's own needs met is to disregard that others have needs as well just seems...sad and pathetic.

That said, these guys sound like the perfect market for sellers of s*x robots. So I'm sure capitalism will have a solution forthwith for the Incel problem.

The chapter in Bonk by Mary Roach about the s*x robots makes me think that problem is not about to be solved forthwith.

[LMD]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.

 

Are you seriously saying that you think Bluegoat is subtly arguing that marital rape is a-okay?

Our society, in practice, effectively says that rape is a-okay in most circumstances. Convictions are rare, punishments are an insult, and the treatment of rape victims is retraumatising. This is patriarchy in action. Marriage or legal protection via consent laws, in the context of a patriarchal society, are always going to have limitations. We live in a rape culture, where women and men are groomed into a certain expectation around sex. 

[LMD]

Sex robots is a horrifying, dystopian nightmare imo. The last thing men need is more vivid rape practice.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/09/damage-samantha-sex-robot-shows-male-aggression-being-normalised?amp

[Ravin]

31 minutes ago, Farrar said:

The chapter in Bonk by Mary Roach about the s*x robots makes me think that problem is not about to be solved forthwith.

 

To clarify: I was being sarcastic.

[Sneezyone]

53 minutes ago, LMD said:

 

Are you seriously saying that you think Bluegoat is subtly arguing that marital rape is a-okay?

Our society, in practice, effectively says that rape is a-okay in most circumstances. Convictions are rare, punishments are an insult, and the treatment of rape victims is retraumatising. This is patriarchy in action. Marriage or legal protection via consent laws, in the context of a patriarchal society, are always going to have limitations. We live in a rape culture, where women and men are groomed into a certain expectation around sex. 

 

No. I’m not. I’m saying that many of the ideas mentioned about the duties and obligation of sex within marriage are known to be associated with a lower threshold for consent within marriage. Whether one identifies non-pleasurable or coerced sex between married people as ‘rape’ is up to the parties involved. Duty and obligation is not a standard I’d like either of my children to cling to.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Ravin]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

No. I’m not. I’m saying that many of the ideas mentioned about the duties and obligation of sex within marriage are known to be associated with a lower threshold for consent within marriage. Whether one identifies non-pleasurable or coerced sex between married people as ‘rape’ is up to the parties involved. Duty and obligation is not a standard I’d like either of my children to cling to.

 

When duty and obligation run only one direction, it is even more problematic. Often that lower threshold for consent is only seen as on the part of one party: the woman in a heterosexual relationship. 

[Farrar]

35 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

To clarify: I was being sarcastic.

Oh, I figured. I just never miss an opportunity to reference that particular chapter. Which was very weird.

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

 

They just sound entitled to me.

And deeply envious of those men who seem to be successfully performing the kind of masculinity that gets them free sex with hot women. 

I don't think we need to replace consent - consent is a useful, if low, bar. We just need to think through the mixed messages we give around consent, and understand that consent is a more complex, and yet limited concept than an article in Everyday Feminism would have it.

We probably need to 1. deepen our discourse around consent and 2. think about what we can do to lift the bar higher than mere consent, enthusiastic or not,.

I agree with most of this. And there's a... messed up something about any of us even trying to "understand" them when they have so little interest in understanding women - or anyone with any perspective other than their own.

I definitely think we need to deepen discourse around consent. But for me I think there are two levels going on and one of them should be able to be reduced to something simple and understandable. The larger ethical, moral picture of consent and relationships is always going to be more complex - as it should. Just like all our questions of good and evil and right and wrong are always going to be complex. But I think it's okay if there's a lower bar that's about legalities and consent for beginners that are reduceable to an Everyday Feminism article.

[Bluegoat]

6 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.

 

I think I said way back that I don't have an answer for that.

But I think what you've said here kind of exemplifies the problem - we don't really have a shared approach or even language to talk about the deeper nature of sexuality, (though - I think you could probably group some seemingly different perspectives together.)

So long as that is the case, or people believe it to be, the social consensus, by default, seems to be that consent is the most fundamental way to think about sexual encounters.  But if that's not really adequate, or it's misleading alone, well, that leaves society as a whole with a problem.

I don't think there always needs to be an answer or a cure to see that some practice or ideology or approach is lacking in some way.  

[Janeway]

The writer of the article is claiming an entire "subset" of men out there with these wants and attitudes with no sources referenced. It is nothing more than her opinion of men. And for every man like what she describes, there is a woman equally as extreme in the other direction. There will always be hate. I suspect this woman might be one of those extremists who wrote this article in hopes to incite more hate toward white men in general. It is not okay.

[LMD]

43 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

No. I’m not. I’m saying that many of the ideas mentioned about the duties and obligation of sex within marriage are known to be associated with a lower threshold for consent within marriage. Whether one identifies non-pleasurable or coerced sex between married people as ‘rape’ is up to the parties involved. Duty and obligation is not a standard I’d like either of my children to cling to.

Okay, thanks for the reply.

I think the disconnect is that, at least with married people there is more chance of an intimacy beyond a casual consent transaction (intimacy/familiarity does not necessarily equal good/healthy). This doesn't mean that marriage is The Solution but I agree that emotional intimacy might be an important piece of the puzzle. Expecting a spouse to perform a marital 'duty' without respecting them is not a good representation of a good emotional connection. Consent, or maybe more specifically respect for bodily autonomy and integrity, is another piece.

The incel et al view of women as a dehumanized body to serve only their own needs precludes any emotional familiarity or respect for bodily autonomy/integrity. It is much easier to use and abuse someone stripped of their humanity.

[Bluegoat]

4 hours 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? 

 

I would argue that marriage in the west in a certain sense takes the form of a contract, in that it clearly requires the consent or agreement of both parties, but at the same time, that's clearly not been the fundamental basis of it as an institutions, it's simply been how it's formalised.

But from the POV of what it actually is, it's been seen as a kind of complete commitment - the relationship between husband and wife is not longer like a business partnership, but far more like that of a parent and child or siblings - blood relation.  Even where it could be repudiated it was more like a family rift or even a death, something really quite awful, often with lasting consequences emotional and material. Theologically it's described through the idea of becoming one flesh - no longer entirely separate people, and requiring love or total self-giving toward the other.  I don't really think I would characterise that as a transaction, it's not something you could talk about in terms of a capitalist, or really any, monetary or labour exchange, and you could not really compare it to prostitution or the porn industry.  It's just not a similar thing

Now, this has not always in fact worked out that people have lived up to this, and like all institutional forms it could and was abused.  But I think it's a much more substantial basis for what is involved in a healthy sexual relationship needs to be, and is also more realistic about what the outcome of a sexual relationship between people is likely to result in, which is being parents together.

I think it's totally predictable that capitalism gives rise to commodification of sex, as you suggest.  What I think though is that the consent model as it's being used, though it's not really intended, contains a lot of those same assumptions, and for a lot of people in our society there is not much else being given in addition to that.  It's all sexual revolution/capitalist commodification/sex positive/culture of consent.  But without something more, the consent bit reinforces rather than just softening the commodification element.  I also suspect, that if we did have some better model for talking about something more, it also might take the consent element in a somewhat different direction than it seems to be going now.

 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

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.

 

I think maybe some people are conflating incels with some of the men's rights people, the red pill types. (There are men's rights people that are not into all that stuff.)  The red pill types seem much more to be the ones who are scarier and into this very transactional stuff.  The incels have some overlap, but I get the impression like you they are coming from a situation of wanting something that is in fact a good - a real relationship and sex - and that somehow for many of them that really hasn't worked out for them.  

I think of the incels, psychologically, a lot like I think of young men who are in material poverty of some kind, or politically oppressed, and they radicalise as a response to that.  One element of the radicalisation is that they see their position as unjust - often because they are able to compare it to something they see as better - sometimes it's something real, like wealthy people, or sometimes it's something that isn't, like the idea of a certain type of power they are being told they have a right to.

It's easy in our culture to get a lot of messages about what you should expect about your sex life, and even relationships, what's normal, and on the other hand negative messages about what kinds of people are excluded from those things.  And while it maybe seems very naive and unaware to take in all those messages - including things like advertising - as if they were true, I guess if we did't at some level, we would not have them around us.  

Most people seem to take these messages as false, including people who find themselves in unwilling celibacy.  And similarly for women who find they don't fit the ideals they are told they need to, or people who are poor, or whatever.  People see that the message is false, and maybe they despair or maybe they fight against it or whatever. But there is a certain personality type which seems to struggle with that sort of thing, and has a kind of abnormal response where they try and make the promised thing true.  Maybe the self-loathing is part of that.

Anyway - yeah, I do think it is more complicated, and I don't think it's a good thing to totally equate them with red pillers or whatever they are called now.

[Janeway]

I would like to actually see a factual valid article about "incels." I know of someone who talks like what I am guessing an "incel" would talk, but not at all how this emotional writer puts things, adding in her own opinion (it is white supremacists, they ca resort to violence and killing, etc). The only example she brought up was a young man who was biracial, and mentally ill and had been in treatment for a long time.  I know a man who talks about how men won't marry once sex robots are perfected and how when women work, they just have "tidy little careers" and stuff like that. The man is not religious. He has made it clear he hates Christians and Muslims alike. I don't think I have ever heard him talk about Jewish people or other religions. He hates atheists though too. But he is not violent or a white supremacist and this article in the New Yorker wreaks of someone just wanting to attack the white male. The topic sounds like a valid one worth reading about, but the article is terrible. And there was women who chose celebacy over men too and hate men. So, it goes both ways.

[Garga]

48 minutes ago, Janeway said:

I would like to actually see a factual valid article about "incels." I know of someone who talks like what I am guessing an "incel" would talk, but not at all how this emotional writer puts things, adding in her own opinion (it is white supremacists, they ca resort to violence and killing, etc). The only example she brought up was a young man who was biracial, and mentally ill and had been in treatment for a long time.  I know a man who talks about how men won't marry once sex robots are perfected and how when women work, they just have "tidy little careers" and stuff like that. The man is not religious. He has made it clear he hates Christians and Muslims alike. I don't think I have ever heard him talk about Jewish people or other religions. He hates atheists though too. But he is not violent or a white supremacist and this article in the New Yorker wreaks of someone just wanting to attack the white male. The topic sounds like a valid one worth reading about, but the article is terrible. And there was women who chose celebacy over men too and hate men. So, it goes both ways.

I don’t know about articles, but there are forums for these guys out there.  What would you want to see in an article?  Maybe some numbers of how many men call themselves incels?  And to confirm whether her opinion is fact or not, re: whte supremacy and violence, etc? 

Have you tried googling for articles?  I suppose one of us could do it for you, but we might not be looking for what you want to see. 

I looked for forums for these guys and they are out there.  I’m not sure how active they are.  And apparently there are a lot of them on Reddit, but I don’t really understand reddit, so I don’t know how that works.  Here are a couple I found, in case you want to be irritated.  I could only read so far before all their logical fallacies started annoying me too much:

Incel forum: https://incels.net/

MGTOW forum: https://www.mgtow.com/

 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, LMD said:

Okay, thanks for the reply.

I think the disconnect is that, at least with married people there is more chance of an intimacy beyond a casual consent transaction (intimacy/familiarity does not necessarily equal good/healthy). This doesn't mean that marriage is The Solution but I agree that emotional intimacy might be an important piece of the puzzle. Expecting a spouse to perform a marital 'duty' without respecting them is not a good representation of a good emotional connection. Consent, or maybe more specifically respect for bodily autonomy and integrity, is another piece.

The incel et al view of women as a dehumanized body to serve only their own needs precludes any emotional familiarity or respect for bodily autonomy/integrity. It is much easier to use and abuse someone stripped of their humanity.

 

And see, I don't think people who subscribe to a view of sex within marriage as an obligation see it as being disrespectful or lacking in emotional intimacy at all. I think people convince themselves that, because I love this person or care for him/her, I should engage in sexual activity whether I feel like it or not, whether I have any physical satisfaction or not, because I want to please not because I want to enjoy. And *that*, to me, is problematic (a lowering of the bar of consent) and not so far separated from what the incels believe as well. The idea that we should subsume our own pleasures and wants in service of others and act as de facto vessels for the pleasure of others is a pretty widespread and deep-seated idea. I don't think it  matters whether someone imposes those duties/views upon us or we impose them on ourselves.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[KidsHappen]

2 hours ago, Janeway said:

The writer of the article is claiming an entire "subset" of men out there with these wants and attitudes with no sources referenced. It is nothing more than her opinion of men. And for every man like what she describes, there is a woman equally as extreme in the other direction. There will always be hate. I suspect this woman might be one of those extremists who wrote this article in hopes to incite more hate toward white men in general. It is not okay.

I can't tell you where but somewhere in the wormhole I followed on the subject I found a quote that when Reddit closed their subreddit for incels (because of resulting violence) there were over 40,000 subscribers and this was just one outlet. There have be at least three major (with at least 11 ? deaths) acts of violence related to the movement. I don't think it takes an extremist to point this out.

 

ETA: Sorry four mass murder events with over 45 deaths.

Edited March 26, 2019 by KidsHappen

[Janeway]

27 minutes ago, Garga said:

I don’t know about articles, but there are forums for these guys out there.  What would you want to see in an article?  Maybe some numbers of how many men call themselves incels?  And to confirm whether her opinion is fact or not, re: whte supremacy and violence, etc? 

Have you tried googling for articles?  I suppose one of us could do it for you, but we might not be looking for what you want to see. 

I looked for forums for these guys and they are out there.  I’m not sure how active they are.  And apparently there are a lot of them on Reddit, but I don’t really understand reddit, so I don’t know how that works.  Here are a couple I found, in case you want to be irritated.  I could only read so far before all their logical fallacies started annoying me too much:

Incel forum: https://incels.net/

MGTOW forum: https://www.mgtow.com/

 

I ended up reading up on them on Wikipedia and her article was still just emotion filled and failed to describe what incels were. Based on what I read on wikipedia, the guy I referenced would not be considered an incel as he is married. His wife seems miserable too.

[Janeway]

11 minutes ago, OKBud said:

Janeway just look it up 🙄. Women are not making up incel business to make men look bad. Get a grip, dude. Incels are literally encouraging one another to kill women for denying them access to their private parts. 

Your 'this sounds anti-man" business is woefully misplaced and tone deaf in the extreme.

I said the way she worded it simply came off as anti-man. I was able to find better articles and references online, even at wikipedia, than the article on New Yorkers. It may be true that incels are bad people, but, they are not rampant and common and they are not "frequently white supremacists" and she was so full of opinion statements that she never really got around to stating facts. I got a little bit of an idea of what she was talking about from her article, but had to go elsewhere to read up on what incels really were.

[LMD]

47 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

And see, I don't think people who subscribe to a view of sex within marriage as an obligation see it as being disrespectful or lacking in emotional intimacy at all. I think people convince themselves that, because I love this person or care for him/her, I should engage in sexual activity whether I feel like it or not, whether I have any physical satisfaction or not, because I want to please not because I want to enjoy. And *that*, to me, is problematic (a lowering of the bar of consent) and not so far separated from what the incels believe as well. The idea that we should subsume our own pleasures and wants in service of others and act as de facto vessels for the pleasure of others is a pretty widespread and deep-seated idea. I don't think it  matters whether someone imposes those duties/views upon us or we impose them on ourselves.

I don't disagree with any of this. Thank you for clarifying.

I do think there can be a place, in long term, healthy relationships, where a short time of putting the other's pleasure above our own can be fine. It's about context though. If one party is always always doing the pleasing with no enjoying, that's not healthy. If one party is cast (or casts themselves) consensually in the role of always-pleaser then I agree that's too low a bar - and to start with that mindframe in a short/casual consent only context is dangerous imo.

[Sneezyone]

Even biblically speaking, the marriage covenant is a contract imposing obligations on those involved as well as granting conjugal rights. Some may choose not to conceptualize or recognize that as a transaction but it is. People are expected to give up individual/personal autonomy in exchange for a collective good, subsume their own desires and preferences (which often includes sexual ones) to maintain the union and follow the leader. Whether or not children are part of that union, those trade offs and sacrifices remain. The idea that sex within this type of marriage is universally healthy or even healthier emotionally just doesn’t sit well in my gut.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, LMD said:

I don't disagree with any of this. Thank you for clarifying.

I do think there can be a place, in long term, healthy relationships, where a short time of putting the other's pleasure above our own can be fine. It's about context though. If one party is always always doing the pleasing with no enjoying, that's not healthy. If one party is cast (or casts themselves) consensually in the role of always-pleaser then I agree that's too low a bar - and to start with that mindframe in a short/casual consent only context is dangerous imo.

 

In the short term, maybe. I just don’t know what short term even means really. Once a month? Twice a week? For how long?  My sense is that these short term caves are more like patterns people fall into and just go with over time, not conscious choices, and certainly a far lower threshold than enthusiastic consent.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Even biblically speaking, the marriage covenant is a contract imposiing obligations on those involved as well as granting conjugal rights. Some may choose not to conceptualize or recognize that as a transaction but it is. People are expected to give up individual/personal autonomy in exchange for a collective good, subsume their own desires and preferences (which often includes sexual ones) to maintain the union and follow the leader. Whether or not children are part of that union, those trade offs and sacrifices remain. The idea that sex within this type of marriage is universally healthy or even healthier emotionally just doesn’t sit well in my gut.

But it is supposed to be mutual. Each spouse is supposed to treat the other's body as their own. How one interprets that can mean different things in different seasons of life, but it isn't a simple "follow the leader" because the "leader" is supposed to put everyone else's needs above their own.

[chiguirre]

2 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I would argue that marriage in the west in a certain sense takes the form of a contract, in that it clearly requires the consent or agreement of both parties, but at the same time, that's clearly not been the fundamental basis of it as an institutions, it's simply been how it's formalised.

But from the POV of what it actually is, it's been seen as a kind of complete commitment - the relationship between husband and wife is not longer like a business partnership, but far more like that of a parent and child or siblings - blood relation.  Even where it could be repudiated it was more like a family rift or even a death, something really quite awful, often with lasting consequences emotional and material. Theologically it's described through the idea of becoming one flesh - no longer entirely separate people, and requiring love or total self-giving toward the other.  I don't really think I would characterise that as a transaction, it's not something you could talk about in terms of a capitalist, or really any, monetary or labour exchange, and you could not really compare it to prostitution or the porn industry.  It's just not a similar thing

Now, this has not always in fact worked out that people have lived up to this, and like all institutional forms it could and was abused.  But I think it's a much more substantial basis for what is involved in a healthy sexual relationship needs to be, and is also more realistic about what the outcome of a sexual relationship between people is likely to result in, which is being parents together.

I think it's totally predictable that capitalism gives rise to commodification of sex, as you suggest.  What I think though is that the consent model as it's being used, though it's not really intended, contains a lot of those same assumptions, and for a lot of people in our society there is not much else being given in addition to that.  It's all sexual revolution/capitalist commodification/sex positive/culture of consent.  But without something more, the consent bit reinforces rather than just softening the commodification element.  I also suspect, that if we did have some better model for talking about something more, it also might take the consent element in a somewhat different direction than it seems to be going now.

 

I think marriage has always been considered a contract. Dowries or bride prices (depending on each societies view of who wins/who loses economically when a woman marries) are recorded in the earliest literate societies. That's a whole lot of history of considering marriage an economic contract between two families. Our ideal of a marriage based on romantic love is a new concept in the sweep of human history. It only became our societal norm in the past two centuries.

Religion (or at least Roman Catholic tradition in Hispanic countries) also emphasizes the economic element of marriage. There's a whole part of the wedding ceremony where the groom gives the bride 13 coins and promises to share his worldly goods with her. She takes them and promises to be a good administrator of the family's resources. Here's a link to an explanation of this since I know most people may not have seen this ceremony before:

http://www.bodamaestra.com/wedding_arras/

The basis for the argument for gay marriage is that it is the only institution in our society that allows previously unrelated adults to be considered family members and share resources.

These are just three examples that I came up with in short order. I'm sure there's vastly more support for viewing marriage as a primarily contractual and economic relationship even in eras that were more steeped in religious belief than contemporary society.

Edited March 26, 2019 by chiguirre

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, EmseB said:

But it is supposed to be mutual. Each spouse is supposed to treat the other's body as their own. How one interprets that can mean different things in different seasons of life, but it isn't a simple "follow the leader" because the "leader" is supposed to put everyone else's needs above their own.

There is a designated leader, the man. He is supposed to be the head. Yes, both are supposed to give but their roles are proscribed and somewhat distinct. I grew up hearing all about the Proverbs 31 woman who works herself to the bone and submits each night so I may be a bit jaded but how does my body is now yours work when, at any given time, I don’t want your body in or on mine? That issue remains unresolved and/or is often solved by submission doctrine. “You need this as much as I do.” “We need this.” “Healthy relationships need this.” And so it goes.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[Laurie]

8 hours ago, Garga said:

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.  

 

 

I'd never heard the word incel before this thread, but just a few days ago I heard about a man who tried to throw a complete stranger/a woman off a freeway overpass.  His reason for attacking women sounds like these incel monsters.  https://q13fox.com/2019/03/20/man-with-history-of-assaulting-strangers-tried-to-throw-woman-off-i-5-overpass-police-say/

This guy has a history of drug use.   In my opinion, I think a lot of them have warped their brains with a combination of drug use and porn.   ( I think we'd be wise to get rid of the computers in libraries so at least the pervs roaming the streets can't use the internet.  Let people read books and use encyclopedias! And don't get me started on the legalization of drugs like pot!)

[Farrar]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think maybe some people are conflating incels with some of the men's rights people, the red pill types. (There are men's rights people that are not into all that stuff.)  The red pill types seem much more to be the ones who are scarier and into this very transactional stuff.  The incels have some overlap, but I get the impression like you they are coming from a situation of wanting something that is in fact a good - a real relationship and sex - and that somehow for many of them that really hasn't worked out for them.  

I think of the incels, psychologically, a lot like I think of young men who are in material poverty of some kind, or politically oppressed, and they radicalise as a response to that.  One element of the radicalisation is that they see their position as unjust - often because they are able to compare it to something they see as better - sometimes it's something real, like wealthy people, or sometimes it's something that isn't, like the idea of a certain type of power they are being told they have a right to.

It's easy in our culture to get a lot of messages about what you should expect about your sex life, and even relationships, what's normal, and on the other hand negative messages about what kinds of people are excluded from those things.  And while it maybe seems very naive and unaware to take in all those messages - including things like advertising - as if they were true, I guess if we did't at some level, we would not have them around us.  

Most people seem to take these messages as false, including people who find themselves in unwilling celibacy.  And similarly for women who find they don't fit the ideals they are told they need to, or people who are poor, or whatever.  People see that the message is false, and maybe they despair or maybe they fight against it or whatever. But there is a certain personality type which seems to struggle with that sort of thing, and has a kind of abnormal response where they try and make the promised thing true.  Maybe the self-loathing is part of that.

Anyway - yeah, I do think it is more complicated, and I don't think it's a good thing to totally equate them with red pillers or whatever they are called now.

I guess where this line of thinking loses me is that they're not actually oppressed in the way they conceive. I think a lot of these guys are bitter because a few generations ago or more they would have been living in smaller communities and followed more proscribed paths that, yes, might have included marriage and sex. Instead, they're stuck in our weird, overpopulated, internet driven, communities disintegrating, picky dating world. But they're still (mostly white) men who have not lost all their privileges in the world. They're just bitter about the ones they have lost. Losing that previously more straightforward path to sex is not the same as oppression.

Realistically, most of these guys are not hideous. Most of them are awkward guys and maybe are not financially in a good place, sure. But if they would make an effort and respect women they'd probably have a shot. But they're choosing instead to complain and hate women. It's easier for them to do that than to go out and get shot down. And that's not the same as oppression. I think it's easy for people to sit back and look at someone in poverty or who is actually oppressed in some way and dismiss the barriers they have to change. But this is different to me. The barriers genuinely are of their own making. Or they're really things that we all face now - like the aforementioned changes in social mores around sex and relationships.

[EmseB]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

There is a designated leader, the man. He is supposed to be the head. Yes, both are supposed to give but their roles are proscribed and somewhat distinct. I grew up hearing all about the Proverbs 31 woman who works herself to the bone and submits each night so I may be a bit jaded but how does my body is now yours work when, at any given time, I don’t want your body in or on mine?

I'm sorry that is your experience with biblical teaching or practical Christian living, but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of Ephesians (the head is specifically supposed to sacrifice himself for his wife, including unto death if necessary, and he is supposed to care for her body as he cares for his own... so I think that includes not raping her or cajoling relations when she doesn't feel up to it). I suppose the biblical debate is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

In any case, I think in any marriage there are going to be times when the wife wants some and her husband doesn't and vice versa. Maybe in the case of injury or illness this goes on for a long time. Maybe it's a difficult week at work. In either case I think they are supposed to treat each other with respect and that can vary quite a bit practically depending on a lot of individual circumstances. But I don't know why it would always mean the woman having to lie back and think of England, biblically or otherwise.

But, as an aside, I have to say that the idea of "enthusiastic consent" sort of weirds me out. Enthusiastic by whose standard? How does this work practically? Who is judging enthusiasm? What if someone is less emotive or just feeling lazy in the moment, but they still wanna...? Do they fail the enthusiastic consent test? What if they want to for utilitarian purposes like conception or something? What if they were bored and couldn't think of anything better to do? 😂 I don't even know how you would judge someone's level of enthusiasm as a standard and trying to do that seems creepy somehow. I can't imagine a dude judging a woman that way..."Are you enthusiastic enough for me to have relations with you?" And how insulting if he decided, nope! Especially someone's DH...oh man. Sorry, honey, you weren't enthusiastic enough tonight; no soup for you. I'm sure I am not getting this framework as its intended because it all just seems to awkward and judgy.

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, EmseB said:

I'm sorry that is your experience with biblical teaching or practical Christian living, but I don't think it's an accurate reflection of Ephesians (the head is specifically supposed to sacrifice himself for his wife, including unto death if necessary, and he is supposed to care for her body as he cares for his own... so I think that includes not raping her or cajoling relations when she doesn't feel up to it). I suppose the biblical debate is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

In any case, I think in any marriage there are going to be times when the wife wants some and her husband doesn't and vice versa. Maybe in the case of injury or illness this goes on for a long time. Maybe it's a difficult week at work. In either case I think they are supposed to treat each other with respect and that can vary quite a bit practically depending on a lot of individual circumstances. But I don't know why it would always mean the woman having to lie back and think of England, biblically or otherwise.

But, as an aside, I have to say that the idea of "enthusiastic consent" sort of weirds me out. Enthusiastic by whose standard? How does this work practically? Who is judging enthusiasm? What if someone is less emotive or just feeling lazy in the moment, but they still wanna...? Do they fail the enthusiastic consent test? What if they want to for utilitarian purposes like conception or something? What if they were bored and couldn't think of anything better to do? 😂 I don't even know how you would judge someone's level of enthusiasm as a standard and trying to do that seems creepy somehow. I can't imagine a dude judging a woman that way..."Are you enthusiastic enough for me to have relations with you?" And how insulting if he decided, nope! Especially someone's DH...oh man. Sorry, honey, you weren't enthusiastic enough tonight; no soup for you. I'm sure I am not getting this framework as its intended because it all just seems to awkward and judgy.

 

My DH and I don’t have that kind of marriage or subscribe to that thinking but it is very, very common. The JP who married us (also a local preacher...two-fer!) gave us a nice long lecture on the topic before our civil ceremony (just in case we were unsure how to go about being married). I don’t find it at all awkward to get my spouse’s explicit consent nor he mine. We consider it part of effective, adult communication. We’ve told both our kids that if you can’t talk about it soberly and clearly, aren’t able to make your wishes/desires plain, you have no business doing it. If someone says no, ok, try again next time. No pouting, no hurt feelings, nada. A nice snuggle is ok too.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Sneezyone

[EmseB]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I don’t find it at all awkward to get my spouse’s explicit consent nor he mine. We consider it part of effective, adult communication. We’ve told both our kids that if you can’t talk about it soberly and clearly, aren’t able to make your wishes/desires plain, you have no business doing it. If someone says no, ok, try again next time. No pouting, no hurt feelings, nada. A nice snuggle is ok too.

That's...not at all what I was referring to, but I'm glad it works for you guys!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

36 minutes ago, Laurie said:

I  ( I think we'd be wise to get rid of the computers in libraries so at least the pervs roaming the streets can't use the internet.  Let people read books and use encyclopedias! And don't get me started on the legalization of drugs like pot!)

You know, when someone comes out with a comment like this I really do have to wonder if they even take a moment to just think it through a little.  Have you never heard of people with limited resources using library computers for job searches, job applications and the like?  And you really think one of society's major issues is "pervs" getting access to library computers? Really?

I won't get started with you regarding the legalization of pot because I don't have time for a remake of "Reefer Madness" right now.

Edited March 26, 2019 by ChocolateReignRemix

[EmseB]

13 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Enthusiastic consent is just supposed to mean explicit non-coercion, but I don't know why it isn't just called non-coercion. 

I mean, people should know that consent can't be coerced, because if it is, it's not consent!

But people think 'yes' is consent.

And so, to get around the idea of a 'yes' that has been coerced, there's this idea that a 'Yes, please!' is a better standard.

Because 'yes, please!' is less likely to be a coerced expression.

Idk. I think the whole thing is weird.

I mean, it's good, if it's made explicit why you should seek 'enthusiastic consent' and not just 'consent'. 

But the term 'enthusiastic' brings in some extra...connotations. 

Is there any possible way, within the 'enthusiastic consent' framework, consent can be non-verbal? 

Edited March 26, 2019 by EmseB

[EmseB]

1 minute ago, StellaM said:

 

Oh goodness, I think enthusiastic consent is almost better expressed and understood non verbally!

I think it's supposed to be explicit and verbal, though, especially between casual partners. 

I just ask because your first sentence... that's not the general vibe I've gotten (either from produced PSAs about the topic as it relates to casual hook ups or from discussions here that lean more towards the marriage aspect). Which makes the enthusiastic part seem a bit more awkward/cheesy/ruin the mood.

The pp that I was replying to seem to suggest a lack of adult communication skills if it wasn't verbally stated and I was left wondering how odd it actually is to not use words in expressing these things with, say, decades with the same partner, mutual trust and understanding, etc. Or even if a new partner, certainly consent can be non-verbal?

[maize]

8 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I would argue that marriage in the west in a certain sense takes the form of a contract, in that it clearly requires the consent or agreement of both parties, but at the same time, that's clearly not been the fundamental basis of it as an institutions, it's simply been how it's formalised.

But from the POV of what it actually is, it's been seen as a kind of complete commitment - the relationship between husband and wife is not longer like a business partnership, but far more like that of a parent and child or siblings - blood relation.  Even where it could be repudiated it was more like a family rift or even a death, something really quite awful, often with lasting consequences emotional and material. Theologically it's described through the idea of becoming one flesh - no longer entirely separate people, and requiring love or total self-giving toward the other.  I don't really think I would characterise that as a transaction, it's not something you could talk about in terms of a capitalist, or really any, monetary or labour exchange, and you could not really compare it to prostitution or the porn industry.  It's just not a similar thing

Now, this has not always in fact worked out that people have lived up to this, and like all institutional forms it could and was abused.  But I think it's a much more substantial basis for what is involved in a healthy sexual relationship needs to be, and is also more realistic about what the outcome of a sexual relationship between people is likely to result in, which is being parents together.

I think it's totally predictable that capitalism gives rise to commodification of sex, as you suggest.  What I think though is that the consent model as it's being used, though it's not really intended, contains a lot of those same assumptions, and for a lot of people in our society there is not much else being given in addition to that.  It's all sexual revolution/capitalist commodification/sex positive/culture of consent.  But without something more, the consent bit reinforces rather than just softening the commodification element.  I also suspect, that if we did have some better model for talking about something more, it also might take the consent element in a somewhat different direction than it seems to be going now.

 

Commodification of human relationships feels profoundly wrong to me. I certainly experience marriage as a total commitment, not an "as long as it meets my personal needs" kind of thing as a business relationship would be. I expect equal commitment from my spouse and view divorce as sometimes tragically necessary (as in cases of ongoing abuse) but much more serious in scope than the breaking of any business agreement. 

[Ausmumof3]

In terms of commodification of relationships what about those services in like Japan, where you can hire a grandmother or a mum or a dad for a day? How do people feel about that?  I feel like a hypocrite because I’m very anti commodifying human relationships in general yet I can see how that could be kind of sweet in a strange way.  

[Rosie_0801]

10 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

In terms of commodification of relationships what about those services in like Japan, where you can hire a grandmother or a mum or a dad for a day? How do people feel about that?  I feel like a hypocrite because I’m very anti commodifying human relationships in general yet I can see how that could be kind of sweet in a strange way.  

 

I'm all in favour of people doing what they need to do to solve their problems and get their needs met. With obvious caveats about not damaging anyone in the process.

 

I might be sad that anyone needs this, but is it really different to someone hiring a therapist to help them through issues or a life coach for accountability and pep talks? I mean, ideally no one has problems too big to manage, but that's not always reality.

[goldberry]

23 hours ago, Janeway said:

The writer of the article is claiming an entire "subset" of men out there with these wants and attitudes with no sources referenced. It is nothing more than her opinion of men. And for every man like what she describes, there is a woman equally as extreme in the other direction. There will always be hate. I suspect this woman might be one of those extremists who wrote this article in hopes to incite more hate toward white men in general. It is not okay.

 

So a discussion about incels who despise women yet simultaneously feel entitled to their bodies... turns into a "look how mean women are to white men"?  How in the heck does that happen???   😳

[Farrar]

I don't know if we'll ever be able to fully escape the commodification of relationships - both romantic/sexual and otherwise. For one thing, sometimes they are a literal commodity, yes, but sometimes thinking about them that way is just a mode of thinking. We have that mode of thinking. People can always apply it to relationships. I don't know that it's escapable. I mean, once you understand that you can analyze something a certain way, that tool is always available. We can't stop being aware of the framework of thinking this way. But we could think that way about a very loving relationship in a healthy context too. It doesn't have to diminish the emotional connections. Just like testing the kids in a class is one way of seeing what they learned, but it doesn't have to diminish the other things they learned (at least, if we don't let it... which often we do in a real world context, but you see what I'm saying, I hope)

[Ausmumof3]

3 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

I'm all in favour of people doing what they need to do to solve their problems and get their needs met. With obvious caveats about not damaging anyone in the process.

 

I might be sad that anyone needs this, but is it really different to someone hiring a therapist to help them through issues or a life coach for accountability and pep talks? I mean, ideally no one has problems too big to manage, but that's not always reality.

Hmm maybe that’s the difference “without damaging anyone in the process”.

 

[Rosie_0801]

19 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Hmm maybe that’s the difference “without damaging anyone in the process”.

 

I don't know about everyone else but around here we find it important to distinguish between what "merely" hurts and what damages. 

[Pam in CT]

re monetized relationships - this is a pretty wide detour from the incel premise outlined in the OP article and its links (I don't recommend unless you have a strong stomach, but they are there) direct quotes from men who self-identify as incel, whose self-described position is that they are entitled to "atomized" sex with hot women of their choosing FOR FREE.... so apologies to the OP.

 

But I've been thinking about this (other) issue too

On March 26, 2019 at 7:18 AM, Ausmumof3 said:

In terms of commodification of relationships what about those services in like Japan, where you can hire a grandmother or a mum or a dad for a day? How do people feel about that?  I feel like a hypocrite because I’m very anti commodifying human relationships in general yet I can see how that could be kind of sweet in a strange way.  

 

The analogy that arose first were therapist/ life coach/ Marie Kando-organizer type relationships...

13 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I'm all in favour of people doing what they need to do to solve their problems and get their needs met. With obvious caveats about not damaging anyone in the process.

I might be sad that anyone needs this, but is it really different to someone hiring a therapist to help them through issues or a life coach for accountability and pep talks? I mean, ideally no one has problems too big to manage, but that's not always reality.

... which (obvious caveats about damage) seem to me to be helpful and healthy, and I don't see anything different about contracting those types of assistance for payment than contracting physical therapy or gutter-cleaning or babysitting services.  Some kinds of help is more "talk-y" than other kinds and feels more "human relationship-y" than say gutter-cleaning... but I don't really see a difference between contracting/ "monetizing" the services of a organizational coach (inherently talk-y) from a physical therapist (less so).

 

There's a new program in my town that matches middle school students with seniors. They play bridge, poker, and chess, drink tea and eat cookies, provide a modicum of support to one another's homework/ computers etc.  It's called the Grand Club.  The "human relationships" aren't compensated by the hour, but it takes money to run the vans around, organize rooms and ensure monitoring in public spaces, pay for supplies etc.  The kids get credit toward their school community service requirements.  I think it's sweet.  Beyond sweet, I also think programs like that have the potential to reduce alienation and loneliness and strengthen community bonds.

I dunno if Japan's "rent a mom for the day" model leans more like that, or more like prostitution/ escort services, or more like Marie Kando coaching.

 

[Ausmumof3]

14 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re monetized relationships - this is a pretty wide detour from the incel premise outlined in the OP article and its links (I don't recommend unless you have a strong stomach, but they are there) direct quotes from men who self-identify as incel, whose self-described position is that they are entitled to "atomized" sex with hot women of their choosing FOR FREE.... so apologies to the OP.

 

But I've been thinking about this (other) issue too

 

The analogy that arose first were therapist/ life coach/ Marie Kando-organizer type relationships...

... which (obvious caveats about damage) seem to me to be helpful and healthy, and I don't see anything different about contracting those types of assistance for payment than contracting physical therapy or gutter-cleaning or babysitting services.  Some kinds of help is more "talk-y" than other kinds and feels more "human relationship-y" than say gutter-cleaning... but I don't really see a difference between contracting/ "monetizing" the services of a organizational coach (inherently talk-y) from a physical therapist (less so).

 

There's a new program in my town that matches middle school students with seniors. They play bridge, poker, and chess, drink tea and eat cookies, provide a modicum of support to one another's homework/ computers etc.  It's called the Grand Club.  The "human relationships" aren't compensated by the hour, but it takes money to run the vans around, organize rooms and ensure monitoring in public spaces, pay for supplies etc.  The kids get credit toward their school community service requirements.  I think it's sweet.  Beyond sweet, I also think programs like that have the potential to reduce alienation and loneliness and strengthen community bonds.

I dunno if Japan's "rent a mom for the day" model leans more like that, or more like prostitution/ escort services, or more like Marie Kando coaching.

 

I don’t think it’s at all sexual in nature.  Just hire a mum, grandma, brother or sister etc for those who either don’t have them or are estranged for some reason.  

Its just that we were talking about commodifying of relationships and I felt like I was having a double standard because the Japan model doesn’t particularly bother me.  I mean it might if it was a case of people choosing not to work on their actual real relationships but not if they simply don’t have someone who is able or willing to fill that role.

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/japans-rent-a-family-industry

here was the article.  Obviously we are a millions miles off topic sorry

[maize]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t think it’s at all sexual in nature.  Just hire a mum, grandma, brother or sister etc for those who either don’t have them or are estranged for some reason.  

Its just that we were talking about commodifying of relationships and I felt like I was having a double standard because the Japan model doesn’t particularly bother me.  I mean it might if it was a case of people choosing not to work on their actual real relationships but not if they simply don’t have someone who is able or willing to fill that role.

The only article I've read about the hire-a-family-member thing in Japan was about a woman who hired someone to pretend to be her child's father and did so on a regular basis. Bio dad wasn't involved in the child's life. Child was told that the Rent-a-Dad was their actual father and apparently that kind of deceit was common for this business.

That is profoundly problematic in my mind. 

[Ausmumof3]

7 minutes ago, maize said:

The only article I've read about the hire-a-family-member thing in Japan was about a woman who hired someone to pretend to be her child's father and did so on a regular basis. Bio dad wasn't involved in the child's life. Child was told that the Rent-a-Dad was their actual father and apparently that kind of deceit was common for this business.

That is profoundly problematic in my mind. 

One example like that was mentioned in the linked article (behind a paywall if you’ve already read two).  But the child wasn’t told he was a father it was in an effort to enrol in a school and apparently there’s a lot of prejudice against single mothers so having a stand in dad for school enrolment and occasions can alleviate that.  I agree telling the child it was actually the father is hugely problematic.

[maize]

8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

One example like that was mentioned in the linked article (behind a paywall if you’ve already read two).  But the child wasn’t told he was a father it was in an effort to enrol in a school and apparently there’s a lot of prejudice against single mothers so having a stand in dad for school enrolment and occasions can alleviate that.  I agree telling the child it was actually the father is hugely problematic.

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-46261699

[Ausmumof3]

5 minutes ago, maize said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-46261699

I kind of understand the motivation to do it in the short term but at some point that poor child is going to find out and be heartbroken.  Either mum dies and can’t pay the bills or real dad turns up or child does genetic testing or genealogy research or actor dude dies.  

On a side note I didn’t realise Japan had such a stigma round single mums.

[Pam in CT]

re therapeutic vs deceptive practices

18 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/japans-rent-a-family-industry

here was the article.  Obviously we are a millions miles off topic sorry

Thanks.  Wow, a lot going on there; including, I think, some real differences in the cultural backdrop in which it takes place.  Some of the (many) examples described seem to me to be much closer to the sweet middle-schoolers-playing-chess-with-seniors, and others veering into deceptive practices that, like maize, are uncomfortable to me.

And there's a whole lot in the middle which strikes me as a form of therapy, of enabling folks to work through a sort of slow-mo compensated-role-playing to get through a particular transition, like the first-featured man who seems to be lurching in teeny tiny steps toward reconciliation with his IRL daughter.  Were he working with a licensed counselor to get to the same slow-mo outcome I'd have no concerns about the compensated nature of THAT relationship.  (Obvious damage caveats) (different cultures/ individuals feel different levels of stigma about getting professional counseling), reconciliation with one's IRL daughter seems to me to be a very worthwhile end game.

Some of the later examples, particularly the "rui-katsu—communal crying” ones, reminded me of ancient Greek drama tradition, the idea of communal catharsis, evoking a shared response to a shared enactment of a narrative aimed at transitioning through fear/loss/grief etc.: also a constructive therapeutic mechanism  (Marvel movies maybe come closest to that role in our society today, LOL).

 

It is striking that the Japan article speaks to immense longing for relationship, conversation, catharsis and connection, which is rather the opposite of what the incels quoted in the OP and the OP links self-describe what they want.

[Pam in CT]

17 minutes ago, maize said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-46261699

 

9 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I kind of understand the motivation to do it in the short term but at some point that poor child is going to find out and be heartbroken.  Either mum dies and can’t pay the bills or real dad turns up or child does genetic testing or genealogy research or actor dude dies.  

On a side note I didn’t realise Japan had such a stigma round single mums.

Yeah, that one definitely falls in the "damage caveat" bucket.