orgotude

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t see where the existence of involuntary celibacy was questioned.

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.

On 6/15/2024 at 12:05 AM, MigL said:

There is no such thing as INvoluntary celibacy; it is all voluntary.

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

12 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Lighten up Francis. This thread is about singles who can't find a significant other. Don't get pissed at me because I didn't expand my response to cover prisons, nursing homes, mental institutions, and people who are castrated in war. Find some other thread where you can grind your axe. I'm not interested.

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.

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I must have missed something. Some reason you are picking a fight with me?

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.

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Who should you be bigoted against, if not criminals who are in jai l???

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.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you think that explains why 'incel culture' is taking off in the Developed countries, as a result of the internet ?
Maybe if they didn't spend so much time online, but actually got out to meet people, they'd get laid !
Are you really going to argue that we, in the developed countries, are lacking in resources ?

 

Everyone is aware that sex ( with the opposite gender ) is not available in prison.
Yet people voluntarily go to jail because they voluntarily do the crime.
Seems to be the result of voluntary bad choices, and as I previously pointed out, lack of responsibility.
( if you want to argue that some 'crimes' should not result in jail time, that is a different story )

This is not the movie Good Will Hunting; sometimes it is their fault.

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.

44 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My grandpa was getting it regularly when he was in a nursing home. They don't remove your twigs and berries when you move in. Apparently they monitor that sort of thing where you come from.

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

 

Quote

When focused specifically involuntary celibacy, [academic journal] samples have been restricted to a few small groups such as the instituationalized elderly

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

 

Quote

Most staff members
have no training on issues related to sexuality and they feel
uncomfortable dealing with sexual issues with older people. Research suggests that
most healthcare professionals working in RACFs do not see
sexuality as something to be promoted or proactively
addressed with residents. In fact, some staff members view
sexuality as irrelevant or even as potentially disruptive for the
organization and their
reactions towards residents’ sexual expression mostly range
from paternalism to discouragement and rejec-
tion.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-3743.2007.00051.x

 

Quote

It has been observed that freedom of sexual expression
is denied in both the rehabilitation and residential
care home setting of nursing homes

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15500531/

 

Quote

Participant: In the end they did put the two of them together, because
well, husband and wife, they weren’t doing anything wrong. Um, and
they were quite an elderly couple.
Researcher: When you say, ‘Weren’t doing anything wrong’, what do
you mean?
Participant: Well, they weren’t making sexual advances to one
another or anything like that. It was just a normal relationship. You
know, nothing was sort of brought out in the open that was
appalling, or anything like that.
In this instance, a married couple were ‘allowed’ to share a
room because their relationship was deemed to be ‘normal’
and therefore asexual.
A facility that has a restrictive ethos with regard to
residents’ affectionate and sexual needs has an impact on the
staff, in that education and support in sexuality issues may
not be provided. Work practices may be permitted to be
restrictive and controlling. As managers do not want to face
sexuality issues – or else disregard them – they see these work
practices not as negative, but as usual.
There were a number of other practices used in the
standing guard context. One of these was the erection of
barriers. This was a management task and existed to guard
against expressions of sexuality and to deal with overt
expressions of sexuality. The barriers might be physical – for
example, moving a person to another room or another
home – or they might be psychological and involve such
things as threats and punishment:
…‘we will have to contact your family’, and most people don’t like
that – they don’t want their families involved. ‘If you continue with
that sort of behaviour…’
The outcomes of standing guard are ultimately avoidance of
sexuality issues, and this results in lack of fulfilment in residents’
lives and subsequently a decline in health status

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.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Absolutely.
We've had discussion of educational solutions and political solutions ( even linking to the housing shortage ) when the problem is actually 'incel mentality', or ideology.
When someone says "I can't get laid, and its everyone else's fault", that is a mental problem.

Maybe that's part of the problem with the evolution of Western society.
When you are encouraged to believe you're not responsible for your own life situation, it is only a small step to believing that all bad situations are someone else's fault.

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.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

While I accept there is a group of celibates who are unhappy with their lives, I don't for a second believe it is strictly involuntary. Maybe no longer being celibate would be difficult or less than ideal, but not involuntary.

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.

On 6/13/2024 at 10:21 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

Food, transportation, and shelter should be a lot easier or less of a cause for warfare but even these three basal elements of quality of life are subject to petty synthetic scarcity, almost as a way to prevent dating. It seems to be the primary cause of any other form of poverty, class dominance is probably secretly a dating driven tactic. The number of armed forces is about twice the number of males that are incarcerated. But if it were just male armed forces, that number would be different, then you add the police force and see how it is possible to contain that kind of number for your own dating prospects. It's the only possible explanation for why the world is like this, same reason to encamp Jews in Nazi Germany, keep them from dating prospects. If you really think about how very short our lives are, that is a big factor in why we'd be driven to behave like this. It is desperation, and is sexually driven, just compounded by aging. 

[...]

However, I do believe sex is exactly what warfare, policing, money AND politics are all based off of in the first place, but in a very discrete way. Maybe discrete to a younger audience, but to the elders this is probably common fricken knowledge. 

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.