orgotude

Well we're making progress. I'd like to further state that it is indeed a thing. (;edit as in the circumstance of involuntary celibacy, not a Reddit subculture relabeled as all involuntary celibacy or whatever attempted redefinition of the English language) Now all those posts about involuntary celibacy being entirely a mentality and not a real thing should probably be deleted to further your rewriting. Admin here is either a malicious asshat on this topic or blind. This isn't counting the posts where it wasn't explicitly said word for word

The question after you all ignored the OPs question was if involuntary celibacy exists, not involuntary singlehood alone. (which by the way, also has its own set of academia). Clearly mental wards, prisons, and nursing homes are examples that show involuntary celibacy exists. After it is established that it exists, then we can move onto less obvious cases. But I have to address the nonsensical and non-empiric denialism before more day-to-day examples can be discussed.

I listed a few instances of no-brainer examples of involuntary celibacy. Your response to that was "my grandpa had sex in a nursing home". This is not a discussion people are taking seriously, when mature academics have. I'm sorry you feel this way but you are not engaging in a serious discussion. I brought up institutions. This includes mental wards, jails/prisons, and nursing homes, among other places. These are no-brainer examples of involuntary celibacy with plenty of academic literature to back it up. Your response is to shift the discussion to the moral value of the most abhorrent people in the least sympathetic among those three. This is not a serious discussion.

You can haphazardly label every typical involuntary situation in life as fully voluntary and this conversation will go nowhere. The existence of involuntary celibacy is well documented in academic literature. Your responses and the responses of most people here are ignoring the relevant academia as well as the OPs main question. As far as the OP, if you want to come back please do, otherwise this has devolved into people being bigoted and ableist against those with the least power in society, particularly those institutionalized.

In the USA, sexual intercourse and even masturbation is banned in mental wards. In other words, involuntary celibacy. To deny that would just to be a bigot. Same as in prisons in the USA, given only a few states nowadays allow conjugal visits, and most particularly in solitary confinement. As far as nursing homes, involuntary celibacy within them is documented and well researched, and not limited to the USA https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813706 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2012.713869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926239608404402 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jan.12398 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-3743.2007.00051.x https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15500531/ it doesn't not exist because one, or one hundred, or one million people had sex in them. It depends on the institution, as you said some do actively monitor it in nursing and attempt to stop it. Regardless of whether it is right or wrong, it is involuntary celibacy. These are among the most extreme cases, but historian Elizabeth Abbot for example identified many more less extreme should you want to talk about them. It's in her book "A History of Celibacy", in her chapter on involuntary celibacy.

I'd recommend looking outside neoliberal, gender focused, or sensationalist journals and magazines This is a good one, "Men's fear of sex with women: A cross-cultural study" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00287331 Nowhere does this mention some ambiguous mass moral failing or lack of will as the cause of gynophobia and genophobia. Extreme examples of universal, cultural gypnohobia have been found in the highlands of New Guinea for example, where widespread anti-masturbation propaganda coincides with notions of, "perilous female sexuality". The anthropologist Carol Ember argues that such fears were likely caused by limited availability of basic resources that would be required to increase the population. In other words, the material conditions mostly begets a mental cause of incel, not so much the other way around. Easiest to see in places where this manifests most extreme and therefore is easier to measure. Apparently prisons, mental wards, and nursing homes don't exist.

Lastly, there are some "short cut" or "band-aid" solutions for incel (or "involuntary celibacy" for those keen on broadbrushing with a small set of ideologies or forums) which are relatively easy to be voted through legislatures or ruled on positively in the courts. Some have even been implemented, sometimes in the name of reducing involuntary celibacy. One partial solution is government reimbursement for voluntary hookers among those who are incel due to not being able to move or with severe cognitive impairements. This was done in the Netherlands between 1992-2018. The easiest band-aid near-solution, in my opinion, is to simply legalize brothels, which would dramatically reduce the real and implicit market cost of heterosexual sex, and could be accomplished without any reference to incel at all, given there is a whole feminist movement dedicated to legalizing certain forms of explicit sex trade on the basis of destigmatizing hookers. This would also increase accessibility to heterosexual sex across the USA, given brothels are currently only legal in a few corners of Nevada.

Out of those 3 "basal elements of life" you mentioned, stable and exploitation free housing is the most cost-prohibitive. More people are essentially barred from it than from food or transportation, by an order of millions. I find it hard to explain why the US has allowed land and housing to become a cost-prohibitive, morality-free market investment scheme, where the purpose is to maximize monetary return, rather than make sure someone else who needs it occupies it after you die. Especially given housing is necessary for the nuclear-style family reproduction the USA morally promotes. Individual housing is somewhat also necessary for non-reproductive sex in the USA considering how stigmatized real-life-sex actually is, beyond all the titillating media. These are moral contradictions that contribute to and cause many ills in society, including those who are negatively affected by incel. Some countries solve this partially through forced inheritance and widespread public housing, the first of which the US does not have and the latter of which Nixon and Reagan gutted. You suggest housing cost-prohibition may be partly for sexual reasons. I am open to the idea, but wonder why you think that. The gutting of public housing, for example was first done, at least nominally, with a false justification that slums are worse than underhousing and homelessness. The incel implications of relegating millions to their parents home perhaps was just an oversight? Regardless, the poverty bigotry underlying public housing gutting is, in my opinion, based in the attitude of not wanting the poor to live freely and build a life for themselves. This might include reproduction but I'm not sure. If the reproductive concern is there from the "dominating classes" I think it would be more due to ideology than selfishness. The "dominating classes" could guarantee everyone the "American dream", they simply choose not to. Prior to the 1970s there was a eugenics movement in the USA, which included forced sterlization, but not explicitly forced involuntary celibacy beyond institutions. There is little, personal sexual benefit forr keeping others from reproducing in a mostly monogamous society, and the "blackpill" claim that the upper crust of society are all in polygamous harems is probably exaggerated at best. Additionally, after birth control, there is little eugenic reason to keep the housing insecure from having sex, yet it is done implicitly anyway. If there is a sexual reason the "dominating classes" keep people housing insecure, I think it would be to force those without housing to sublimate their sexual desires into economic activity to afford housing, where, even if the incel "loses", the economy benefits. So pro-economic-growth ideology might be an important factor. I think everyone would agree that the US has a pro-economic-growth obsession, and that has at least some negative externalities. Also, the USA might value work more than widespread sexual satisfaction. Thereby making work to afford, a perhaps never achievable housing goal a more US-approved goal for the peasantry than seeking casual sex. Regardless, to be the only one who actually answers your question in this thread, there was a US-centric political party explicitly for "incels", whose primary platform plank was universal housing accessibility, as well as the elimination of economic growth obsession. https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://incelparty.win The website was up for years but no longer resolves. There are also some left-wing self-identified "incel" political parties in Russia, (almost all?) led or founded by Alex Podnebesny. They are more misogynistic and less serious than the aforementioned US-centric party. I don't think any of these parties have run candidates. The Russian ones are more vanity and propaganda vehicles. Alex would also likely risk his life by running, considering he has been arrested by authorities for advocating for unwanted celibates. And prior to that, physically tortured by his local government for his environmental activism.