Who do I vote for to aid singles suffering involuntary celibacy

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, orgotude said:

At this point you are just saying words

Here is his definition of celibacy. He admits he can have sex but he only wants it from women he deems worthy and who recognize his physical appearance and his value.

On 6/21/2024 at 6:23 PM, ImplicitDemands said:

When people say celibacy they really mean quality friction between what themselves and what they feel is an appropriate woman, someone of value. 

 

11 minutes ago, orgotude said:

His posts are partially about his perception that he cannot have sex by choice and/or will. 

No, his posts are about the fact that none of the girls he deems worthy will have anything to do with him, while the ones who will are no better than chimps.

You really need to read the entire thread before making claims about what was said.

[orgotude]

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No, his posts are about the fact that none of the girls he deems worthy will have anything to do with him

The "ForeverAloneWomen" forum was once made private due to men constantly propositioning them.  Same with the original, exclusively female self-identified incel forums.  Although people in the "r/incels subculture" would disavow ImplicitDemands as a "standardcel", I am personally willing to accept standards as a weak claim for involuntary celibacy so as to include women and discourage edge case baiting.  So was the "original queer female" who came up with the word incel.  She listed standards as a potential reason and you can read about it in the webarchives of her 1997 website.

So who is really hijacking what?  The people who claim incel self-identification is irrational tend to hijack definitions as much as the "r/incels subculture" and the associated 1-2 forums.

Involuntariness exists across a spectrum and having also read parts of ImplicitDemands text I would put him at a low end of incel but not exclude him entirely for having standards.  Even the prison incel has standards, eg not being raped by the guards to count as "not incel".  A self-identified involuntary homeless person would also have standards of what type of home he would want to live in, and this led dozens today to argue in forums that true involuntary homelessness does not exist in the presence of  housing standards, but well, it does.

Edited June 24 by orgotude

[ImplicitDemands]

I don't understand the nature of some of these allegations. They seem to be broaching on the most heinous of levels imaginable. Someone could end up in a lot of trouble just for these words. 

As I said before, I try to rise above negative connotations when the letters form into slurred lines. 

If the goal is to get a reaction, invoke shape, force a false confession that may satisfy another's agenda, or otherwise provoke a reaction of some kind. I've done plenty for less and still saw a net zero return. If there were a return in the way I'd wished it yielded a negative value. So I stay neutral at all times. Let the lawmen do their jobs, and let me continue my studies as the other thread shows I still have much to learn. 

I misunderstood the term misogyny as massage. That was a positive value in retrospect, probably the only one. Or as close as I can to a positive from what I have to compare it to. 

Edited June 24 by ImplicitDemands

[exchemist]

On 6/23/2024 at 5:35 AM, ImplicitDemands said:

My BMI is under 10%. Exercise was a small part of it. I had built up a frame over the years, right now it was just portion control. I lost some of that frame but I've gotten back in the weight room. Just make sure you hit all the muscle groups, go until failure, if your numbers are very low like mine are now, stop, wait a few minutes, and then go back and hit it. If it was chest or abs and you feel you rushed the workout later that day long after your done you can substitute with pushups and crunches. The goal is soreness throughout each week, that's the quota. Today everything I hit is sore except shoulders, meaning I need to change my shoulder routine. At this BMI I have to be over 500 cals below what is considered or believed to be the recommended daily amount, and 9 pounds under what is considered the minimum healthy weight for my height. At 36 grams of protein per day, the fat per day and all that other stuff reduced, I'd wager it would take at least 2 weeks to gain a pound of muscle, that is with sufficient microtrauma. I wouldn't change my calorie intake until two weeks have transpired and my numbers go up on lifts. 

The units of BMI are not %. If you really had a BMI <10 you would be dead, or close to it.
If you talk crap, people will lose patience with you. 

[ImplicitDemands]

Just now, exchemist said:

The units of BMI are not %. If you really had a BMI <10 you would be dead, or close to it.
If you talk crap, people will lose patience with you. 

 

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, orgotude said:

Having an agreement upon the definitions of the main topic are not my own rules, but generally accepted rules anywhere anyone wants to have a serious discussion.   The participants here are incapable of having a consistent, intelligible, and mututally accepted definition for the basic subjects of the thread.  Despite the fact that it was made clear by the OP and those who self-identify elsewhere on the internet: involuntary celibacy, not a Reddit subculture.  The posts are malicious and to an irrational degree despite the OPs issues.

Those who abide by PSL or r/incels culture can be demarcated verbally by saying "r/incels culture" or "PSL culture" culture or similar terms.  And those tiny online subcultures do not speak for everyone who is unable to have sex.  And again to imply otherwise is bigoted and ableist.

If a person can physically have sex with another, but doesn't, they are NOT involuntary celibates. It's not a case of can't, but won't.  It's a state of wilful inaction, then blaming someone else by proxy. ImplicitDemands is not an involuntary celibate, they have created demands that are unreasonable. The 'obstacles' are of their own creation. The outcome of this behaviour is a forgone conclusion. This is by design for reasons only they know.

Edited June 24 by StringJunky

[MSC]

8 hours ago, orgotude said:

you have no clear answer I'm not participating in gaslighting bullshit from you and will continue to ignore the more substantive posts you make, along with 2-3 other people.

No, we are taking the time to write substantive posts with nuanced detail and you're painting all of us here a certain way because we aren't overly sympathetic to the plights of the involuntary celibate because it is usually a problem the involuntary celibibates themselves are responsible for? Wtf do you want us to do? Give women a hard time for saying no to certain people? Fat chance. That's called encouraging rape. 

Nobody here is gaslighting you either we just refuse to play sycophant to OP and their messed up way of thinking about things.

2 hours ago, ImplicitDemands said:

 

Yes, because people who point out when we are wrong can only be jerks? It's never the person saying stupid sounding stuff that is a jerk...

5 hours ago, orgotude said:

self-identified involuntary homeless person would also have standards of what type of home he would want to live in, and this led dozens today to argue in forums that true involuntary homelessness does not exist in the presence of  housing standards, but well, it does.

People have already said this is a false equivalency. For countless reasons. The plight of the homeless is so not the same as what incels experience and the fact that you think they are equivalent betrays the objectification incels put women through. You can buy a house, you can rent a house. You can't legally buy or rent a women (you can rent a women in places where prositution is legal but it isn't in most places, the legality of prositution would be OT however.) When you commit to live in a house, you have to enter into negotiations with the owner about how that will work. Women, don't have owners. Homeless people by not having a home are at constant risk of death by exposure to extreme weather conditions or victimisation on the streets. Incels by not having sex, are not having sex. At most they are touch starved, which is a real physiological issue, however the cure to touch starvation isn't sex, it's touch. Hugging a friend or family member achieves this. Improving the quality of the platonic relationships you have is key to this. 

Here is my observation; Friends, real friends, set each other up romantically. If this isn't happening, then it makes me wonder; Is OP also inept at cultivating healthy platonic relationships with people? 

Orgo, stop comparing homelessness to involuntary celibacy. They are not the same. 

Instead of inadequately trying to defend implicit demands from us telling him to get help, maybe you can actually show you care enough about him to honestly show him a bit of tough love. I'm sorry we aren't sugercoating things enough for you, but you can't suger coat bitter truths. 

[MigL]

6 hours ago, orgotude said:

about his perception that he cannot have sex by choice and/or will. 

How about masturbation ???
You and the OP sure seem to do a lot of verbal jerking off in this thread.

Can we please ignore these two, so that they hopefully go away, and we can go back to discussing the sciences this forum is designed for ?

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

How about masturbation ???
You and the OP sure seem to do a lot of verbal jerking off in this thread.

Can we please ignore these two, so that they hopefully go away, and we can go back to discussing the sciences this forum is designed for ?

I was thinking that too. Nine pages is long enough.

[ImplicitDemands]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Yes, because people who point out when we are wrong can only be jerks? It's never the person saying stupid sounding stuff that is a jerk...

Again, it's difficult to dig the shame in the context of whatever I wrote. Why don't you try and put the shame in me again? See if that helps. Maybe if you ease up, or go the other way, it might have the opposite effect that it's having. Not suggesting you do so, quite the contrary. But if you were Thomas Edison you might attempt eliminating that which does not work until something works. 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

People have already said this is a false equivalency

It's the hero role betrayed. The hero helps others, harms self. This only works if he has help. Considerably more help. You failed to understand. 

Edited June 24 by ImplicitDemands

[MSC]

31 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

It's the hero role betrayed. The hero helps others, harms self. This only works if he has help. Considerably more help. You failed to understand

You're not a hero and the world doesn't revolve around you. Have you ever accompanied a stranger to the hospital? Have you rushed to help them in a storm? Have you given up home and family to help someone? Have you sacrificed everything just to be close to your child? Have you ever uprooted yourself and moved multiple times so the mother of your child can continue to have a relationship with her first who isn't even yours? Have you ever even changed a diaper or been responsible for keeping a little human alive everyday? Have you ever sacrificed your own wants and desires purely for another person on a consistent basis? 

Heroes don't exist. Just flawed people. I am flawed, you are flawed. The difference between is I can accept outside perspectives on my flaws to constructively improve myself, nomatter the format those outside perspectives are delivered in, even if unfair. 

[ImplicitDemands]

5 minutes ago, MSC said:

You're not a hero and the world doesn't revolve around you. Have you ever accompanied a stranger to the hospital? Have you rushed to help them in a storm? Have you given up home and family to help someone? Have you sacrificed everything just to be close to your child? Have you ever uprooted yourself and moved multiple times so the mother of your child can continue to have a relationship with her first who isn't even yours? Have you ever even changed a diaper or been responsible for keeping a little human alive everyday? Have you ever sacrificed your own wants and desires purely for another person on a consistent basis? 

Heroes don't exist. Just flawed people. I am flawed, you are flawed. The difference between is I can accept outside perspectives on my flaws to constructively improve myself, nomatter the format those outside perspectives are delivered in, even if unfair. 

I may have my own equivalency. I don't feel shame, no. I'm not going to rehash my life any further. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, orgotude said:

If it's done such a way to irrationally stigmatize a large demographic of people, on the order of millions,

We’re not discussing millions. We’re discussing one person, who started this thread, and used the term incel. You’re the one who barged in and has tried to divert the discussion. (One might wonder how you happened upon this discussion)

[TheVat]

The sociologist Carlos Santana has postulated that romantic relationships germinate when an interested party is willing to give their world in order to lift up the other.  He draws parallels between the gravitational effects of the moon on the ocean and the emotional valence of one in the throes of romantic attraction. 

 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, swansont said:

We’re not discussing millions. We’re discussing one person, who started this thread, and used the term incel. You’re the one who barged in and has tried to divert the discussion. (One might wonder how you happened upon this discussion)

I was wondering that myself. 

[ImplicitDemands]

9 hours ago, swansont said:

We’re not discussing millions. We’re discussing one person, who started this thread, and used the term incel. You’re the one who barged in and has tried to divert the discussion. (One might wonder how you happened upon this discussion)

Yeah but that doesn't get a lot of traction. And we don't live long, so don't expect a lot of holding out. There's no real interest I suppose in fairness.

Edited June 24 by ImplicitDemands

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Yeah but that doesn't get a lot of traction. 

What doesn't get a lot of traction?

14 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

And we don't live long, so don't expect a lot of holding out. 

Holding out what? By whom? What does living long have to do with it?

14 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

There's no real interest I suppose in fairness.

Where? What do you mean? Why do you say that?

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

The sociologist Carlos Santana has postulated that romantic relationships germinate when an interested party is willing to give their world in order to lift up the other.  He draws parallels between the gravitational effects of the moon on the ocean and the emotional valence of one in the throes of romantic attraction. 

 

Look, he certainly had interesting hypotheses, but I will add that some of his arguments are questionable from a scientific standpoint. There is a strong "supernatural" undertone including invoking "Black Magic" in some of his earlier works. 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, ImplicitDemands said:

There's no real interest I suppose in fairness.

Nine pages in, I think you know that the issue is what YOU consider fair, because it isn't mainstream. It involves other people, and the government forcing them to interact with you the way you envision. I never saw anyone mention a decent way to legislate that.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Yeah but that doesn't get a lot of traction. And we don't live long, so don't expect a lot of holding out. There's no real interest I suppose in fairness.

Like I said about your conjecture regarding evolution, I don’t see where fairness enters into this.

[ImplicitDemands]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Nine pages in, I think you know that the issue is what YOU consider fair, because it isn't mainstream. It involves other people, and the government forcing them to interact with you the way you envision. I never saw anyone mention a decent way to legislate that.

Oh was it? I claimed it already happened, RECENTLY. Has been happening since the first generation. 

BTW the 9th step says EXCEPT when it threatens you or your own. They don't tell you what that except entails. From my reading of it they will turn away. They ain't gettin' in the middle of that shit. If anyone heard my voice say some of these words...oooooooohhh

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

We’re not discussing millions. We’re discussing one person, who started this thread, and used the term incel. You’re the one who barged in and has tried to divert the discussion. (One might wonder how you happened upon this discussion)

I probably should add that the side discussion and research I shared regarding the incel-culture (which was a response to a comment by another member) was targeted to discuss the broader movement, and not a specific characterization of anyone specific. Individuals who adhere to various tenets of this ideology may have arrived there from very different areas. However, overall research into that matter does suggest that on outsized role of internet influencers on the mostly young men.

I will also add that folks in that corner might benefit from authentic interactions with real folks (and therapists, if possible) as there have been suggestions that quite a few might have some unaddressed issues that they often are not aware of. And those influencers not only prey on those issues but are making bank on misery, fear and rage.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, ImplicitDemands said:

Oh was it? I claimed it already happened, RECENTLY. Has been happening since the first generation. 

BTW the 9th step says EXCEPT when it threatens you or your own. They don't tell you what that except entails. From my reading of it they will turn away. They ain't gettin' in the middle of that shit. If anyone heard my voice say some of these words...oooooooohhh

Are these copy/paste responses to other replies? I don't see how your reply to my post makes any sense. What happened recently? What's been happening since the first generation? What first generation are you referring to? Why are you bringing a 12 step rant into this response to my question: what would you propose this legislation do to force women to acknowledge your amazingness?

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Are these copy/paste responses to other replies? I don't see how your reply to my post makes any sense. What happened recently? What's been happening since the first generation? What first generation are you referring to? Why are you bringing a 12 step rant into this response to my question: what would you propose this legislation do to force women to acknowledge your amazingness?

Ngl Phi I'm getting dissociative psychosis vibes from him at this point. Just based on the randomness of the tangents, it's like he's replying to how he pervieved peoples responses and their content rather than saw them and half responding to his own thoughts like he's fallen back on using himself as a sounding board. It's all been a bit much for him. 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

Look, he certainly had interesting hypotheses, but I will add that some of his arguments are questionable from a scientific standpoint. There is a strong "supernatural" undertone including invoking "Black Magic" in some of his earlier works. 

Indeed, it seemed like he fell back on a devil of the gaps theory to explain some of the lesser understood aspects of heterosexual attraction.  Certainly showing less rigor there than, say, his interpretation of Tito Puente's theory of how rhythms are perceived as enjoyable in Oye Como Va, which seems to have held up under decades of peer review.  Probably to be expected given that cognitive science has gone farther towards understanding music (due to its basis in mathematical relationships between pitches and intervals) than human sexual dynamics.

😏