Incel Culture

Marriage is destroying the world.

I will never marry, it’s self contradiction.

I dedicate myself (unceremoniously) to non contradiction and non consent violation to the utmost of my capacity.

My mother agrees with me.

Zero sum is a fact here, not an opinion.

A woman who denies this is wrong/incorrect.

If marriage, apart from legal or religious definitions, is the union of two people as partners in a personal relationship and for procreation, then marriage made the world. Marriage made for the sex that made you.

As for you saying your mother agrees with you, we’ll just let that be since there’s no way of proving it.

As for the other statements, we will agree to disagree.

But again, do you think that you will more than likely be celibate for the rest of your life?

The evolutionary psychology gold is sex dimorphism, rape dimorphism,
and weapons and combat training dimorporphism all combine to give
females, relative to males, involuntary discomfort for sexual
signaling of any type, like when the eyes involuntarily blink when a
bug flies by them.

This means that the male and female subconscious interprets female
acceptance to male sexual signaling as a “no” for all first and
escalative approaches.

When a male does this, the male is sending a signal to the species, “I
don’t care about the first no”

If the female accepts him after this, she is sending the signal that
“no means yes”

This “no means yes” is interpreted a rape by the subconscious mind.
It is taken out upon each other and the environment.

What’s further understood by the subconscious mind is that had the
world been taught better about human sexuality at its inception, the
world would be a better place, and because all sexual selections would
have been different, nobody alive today would have ever been born.

Psychologically, people argue against all of this reflexively, that
100% of all human sex has been rape, that we are all rape babies
who never should have been born had the world been a better
place, to maintain their narrative of meaning and purpose.

The 5 Stages that a Sex dimorphic species must traverse to not
contradict itself.

In a sex dimorphic species, one sex is larger and more threatening
than the other gender.

If it’s not the individual, it is the whole… a 5 foot man approaching
a 7 foot women is still more threatening (his other friends), because
the sum total of men are stronger and more threatening. If for some
bizarre reason, men and women decided to go to combat against each
other, men would kill all the women, they would win that war.

Because of this phenomenon, when men approach women with the same
approach a women can use for a man, the women will show more
discomfort than the man will, from minute discomfort, to extreme
discomfort. Where a man may look in disgust and say “go away”, the
women will call the police, or get a bunch of her male friends to get
the guy off her. For the same approach women are always more
uncomfortable than a male.

What this means as a whole, is that women have a “no” for first
approaches. This may not be true of all women, this discomfort for
being approached, but, since this is so extremely rare, this forces
the man to play mind reading games about female consent, which can
lead to very dangerous situations, making him believe he is the
special exception which reads the vibe better.

So the rule, is “No” for all first approaches from a male to a female.

This rule also applies to all children, as they are dimorphic as well,
compared to adults. It’s a “no” for first approaches.

But it’s not only the first approach that matters. It is the
escalation that matters as well. If a women turns to you and smiles
and holds your hand for the first time in an intimate way. Leaning
over to kiss her, is an escalation of first approach. This is also
mind reading, “the vibe”… every stalker on earth or inappropriate
person is feeling “the vibe”. Vibe is almost universally abused, as a
mind reading game, and is not an excuse for escalation.

The problem here is that any behavior that is ornamental or escalative
from the male side, is already turning a “no” into a “I don’t care
about the no”. If an escalation is used and it turns into something
more, then the female is sending the signal to the entire species,
that “no means yes”

This is where the first stage comes in:

Everyone who has violated the 5,5,3 rule, needs to split up, or never
make sexual contact until the 5 stages of a sex dimorphic species are
cycled through. Otherwise it’s just a “no means yes” relationship.

The second stage is to create intentional communities of about 1000 to
3000 people to work on the other stages.

First approaches must be 100% from the female side. This means NO
ornate male behavior.

Sex distribution ratios need to be equalized between the sexes. The
largest aggravation on the male side is that women are only having sex
without about 2% of the male population before they settle down with
somebody. For men, it is non consensual that women even have sex with these
men, but it’s vastly more non consensual to men that only 2% of these types of
men get almost all the sexual contact with women.

The next stage is that the sexes can start to approach at a 50% to 50%
ratio, with males only using direct approaches and not ornamental
approaches. Now this entire time, females can use ornamentation and
homosexuals can as well. An example of a direct approach is saying
“would you like to go out with me on a date?” An example of an
ornamental approach is watching a sports game on television or wearing
sports memorabilia to show your dominance to a female, your
aggression.

The 5th and final stage is now that the species has been made aware of
the damage of “no means yes” for all heterosexual bondings, males can
finally start to use ornamental behavior again.

The problem with the subconscious being aware that all sexual
encounters are rape “no means yes” is that men take it out on women,
society, other men and the environment at large.

If everyone is trained to use better communication for better outcomes
sexually as a global community of intentional communities, then we can
expect nothing less than better outcomes in all areas of our lives
here.

It is important to note that the number one use of ornamental behavior
in men is that contradicting of ones self. If someone contradicts one
self through many layers of encryption, the female brain interprets as
base code “He said he doesn’t exist, but he’s still here! He must be
God!”


The 5 heartbreaks of relationship

1.) If you’ve ever been hurt by not being in a situation that someone
else is, when you get to that point and it hurts someone else,
somewhere in the back of your mind is a self hatred for doing to
others what hurt you.

2.) If someone is attracted to a person you are with, it may make you
feel superior, however, the idea that the person you are with would be
with them the way you’re with the person your with, causes fear ,
defensiveness and anger. The anger is actually at yourself. The
reason it’s at yourself is because you share the attraction to one
person in common with them, to be angry at them for being with the
person you’re with, is the same as being angry at yourself for being
with the person you’re with. This causes self hatred. This is
avoided if people follow the step of evening out the distribution
ratios between the sexes.

3.) Depending upon the person, millions if not billions of people
could be equally or more compatible in an exciting and different way
than the person you are with. One love does not outweigh millions if
not billions of heartbreaks in terms of the loss

4.) I call this is commiseration heartbreak. When we love something
or someone, we are compelled to share it without harm, so that we can
commiserate with others in a bonding way about that love.
Hoarding a relationship, doesn’t allow for this bonding to occur. And
causes the 4th heartbreak of relationship.

5.) The fifth heartbreak is that you don’t have relationship in the
way you desire.


The three objectifications:

Large Penis
Tall
Money


The three abuses: The three abuses are used to circumvent the three
objectifications, they are MORE powerful in terms of what females
consider consent !!!

1.) proclivity to marry (slave/master/, ownership psychology,
, property memorabilia (rings, amulets etc…) /victor mentality,
antitrust contract(making
someone say what they’re going to say and to forever, instead of
simply trusting them)) and finally, celebrations of the zero sum
nature of ones reality, the antithesis to all good works in existence.
2.) sexual jealousy (if a woman has sex with another man, she will
leave you if you’re not angry at her or the man she slept with)
(conditions men to be sexually jealous)
3.) approach escalation: Women have said no to all escalations - so
any escalation that turned into relationship is a no means yes
relationship.

There is one more part to explain:

If a male puts out to the universe, the cosmos, “I want a wonderful
woman”, he has approach escalated ALL females in the cosmos, which
means he’s not allowed to have sex with any of them, whether they
approach him or he approaches them. (I made this mistake 25 years ago
and have to live with it). My only options now are a female more
powerful than all males combined in existence, a planet going through
the 5 sex dimorphic stages before they meet me, or philosophic zombie
worlds, marionette worlds (using philosophic zombies), hallucinating
ones entire reality from eternal forms, or hyper dimensional mirror
realities. The only other loophole is if a woman asked the cosmos for
a wonderful man before I did. Then my asking the cosmos would be
approach reciprocation, and not escalation. I still can’t escalate
approaches in body, as that would ensure a no means yes, rape
relationship. Women can put out to the cosmos that the man they
approach
is their wonderful man, but they cannot put out to the cosmos that
wonderful men approach them.

A man must explain all of this to a woman, and not have asked the
cosmos for her (except if she asked first), and she must comprehend
all of it, in order for their relationship to be a yes means yes
relationship.

what’s interesting about the subconscious mind, and everyone on this
planet who sees men and women holding hands and laughing, knows deep
in their psyche, that the woman is laughing at her rape and with her
rapist. This causes many minds to snap. Snapping is not an option.

ok so this is Incels way off viewing women.
Is the left woman more criminal in your eyes, Ecman, than the right woman?

What women wear is just part of their flirtatious attitude, no man should consider it any type of invitation …!!! Women the world around flirt on a daily basis with billions of men that they have no intention of having sex with. This is common knowledge / self evident.

I only want yes means yes relationships with women, not no means yes relationships with women.

Your picture and corresponding post has nothing to do with me as a person.

You are not going to know if a woman is ideal relationship material straight away and neither is she
You therefore have only two choices - remain celibate forever or play it by trial and error until you find the most suitable woman you can
Even then you cannot be absolutely certain that the relationship will survive so if that is what you are after then you can only be celibate
You could of course just have no commitment sex but if you also want a relationship then that is just as unsatisfying as the celibacy option

Huh? This has zero percent to do with the topic that women only accept rape relationships, nor anything to do with the actual reason why I am incel.

Your analysis is fundamentally flawed and here is why :

You are assuming that the female subconcious mind is the same for all women - that is that all of them think exactly the same
Not only is this not true for sex but it is also equally not true for everything else women think about as they are all individuals

As this is the foundation upon which your entire argument rests it is invalid so you need to find a better one [ if you actually can ]

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the female subconscious mind always interprets male sexual signals in the negative
Sexual morality and sexual desire are on a spectrum so some women [ not all ] will want to have sex with a man straight away

Because of free will every woman is free to accept or reject the sexual advances of any man the first time she sees him
They are not bound to come to the same decision independent of each other just because they all happen to be women

This is just another pet theory of yours for which you have precisely zero evidence no matter how much you are convinced of its truth value

Women always show micro expressions of discomfort relative to men for sexual signaling … that’s their subconscious speaking.

I’m not even on the scale of autism like all these other men who plow through women’s micro expressions without noticing or giving a shit.

I’m the anti autism … I am so sensitive that I feel and see with such precision that I know the subconscious mind of men knows for a fact that women are accepting no means yes relationships …

The conscious mind lies and lies and lies…

Not a person like me, who has massive amounts of subconscious in my conscious mind.

You are trying to defend yourself from the indefensible, to protect your egoic addiction.

Women do the same thing.

It’s so hard to get anyone to admit that we are rape babies. That like every other species on earth, we are a rape species. We just do it in a more sophisticated way. It’s easy to demonstrate, but hard to get people to admit.

Being the polar opposite of an autistic, a hyper empath, I see the world through my subconscious, I am a freak of nature.

It should suprize nobody that life has created a person like me amongst the billions of humans.

There’s an ancient Native American saying: “we are nothing by living embodiments of the prayers of our anscestors”

I just happen to have a bigger role to play right now, I’m the embodiment of much bigger and more serious prayers.

I don’t believe in reincarnation, I believe in resonant frequencies, which can give you glimpses into the lives of others.

Anyways, my spirit is simple … I cannot enjoy this life unless zero sum is eliminated.

Think of married people for example: “I’m the winner because nobody else did or can do this”

It’s disgusting.

Not all women show micro expressions of discomfort relative to men in relation to sexual signals
You are generalising for an entire gender and have precisely zero evidence to support this claim

You are the most perceptive of all men because you are just so sensitive to womens subconscious sexual feelings ?
Not only can this particular claim of yours not be demonstrated but it is also incredibly narcissistic and egotistical

You are also not the only man [ or woman ] who has subconscious thoughts and you cannot demonstrate you have any more of them
Everyone with a functioning mind has subconscious thoughts though I am not sure that they exist in the conscious mind as you claim

Consenting adults who have sex are not a rape species - what a very stupid thing to claim
Because the very definition of consent automatically invalidates any notion of rape at all

You seeing the world through your subconscious is only true for you and no one else
And so therefore does not make it objectively true even if you actually think it does

You do not need any resonant frequencies to give you glimpses into the lives of others
For you can easily understand what someone is feeling just by empathising with them
You will though never enjoy your life if you are waiting for zero sum to be eliminated

Ecmandu

Let’s put aside for the moment your, ‘me amongst the billions’, good fortune.

Look back over your statements in previous posts. Do you think that any of them could be interpreted by incels of a, shall we say, darker disposition, as tinder for the fire?

I’m not saying that such was your intention, I’m just asking if you think what you’ve said could be misinterpreted as such.

In some respects, perhaps my tone at times. Content wise, I consider acknowledging facts so that you can approach changing to avoid the harmfulness of some of those facts, the opposite of darkness, and I consider darkness to be the stubborn refusal to acknowledge basic facts, I see it flipped around.

There has not been a consensual adult relationship between any two mammals in the history of this earth, except homosexuals (kind of)

If we want to stop being a rape species, we need to first acknowledge that we are a rape species.

And he would know that we are all showing microexpressions of discomfort at each other’s posts and his posts. And there is discomfort on sellers of products who really want and often need to sell for more but can’t. And suppliers. And buyers who really want to pay less.

Every day he participates in a society where some degree of mixed feelings about every contact, every transaction, every social event, every conversation, every friendship, every loving relationship, every drive made and game played, includes some slight relucatance or fear or distrust or feelings of being used somehow or not getting as much as one wants or deserves.

To be an employee is to be ‘raped’ then. To be an employer. To be a shopper. To be a storeowner. To post here at ILP. To read posts here at ILP.

But he participates in much of this, as we all do and must unless we kill ourselves. Though even this act will be a kind of rape if anyone cares about us or for the person who finds the body. Or for someone who hears about it and finds it depressing.

So the focus is only on sex, where he can be pure. Now sex is very important, don’t get me wrong. More important energetically than most people realize. More causal.

But this holier than thou stance is founded on a life of creating microfears and aggressions in other types of contact. And there he accepts a lack of perfection.

Some monks and priests and holy men have tried to elimante all negative effects. Hiding away in silence, the proverbial cave for religious hermits. But even the act of doing this probably at the very least at first causes some mixed reactions.

I am incarnate. I cannot be perfect today, at least. I live, and it is not perfect yet.

And I don’t need some partial monk judging me a rapist.

A child’s idea of perfection that he does not live up to, as if his hurling blame at all men and women is not a consent violation. Puritanial violence.

Where is the humanity and the heartbreak and the one human to others communciation. History is littered with judgmental supposedly utterly clean souls telling us about the motes in our eyes and judging sex.
snore…

Deny all you want Karpel, all mammals are sex dimorphic species. The subconscious has no choice but to interpret the weaker sex’s discomfort and than acceptance as “no means yes”

We take it out on each other and the environment at large while sublimating it, terrified to admit it.

Monks are not free of blame, they never taught this.

A person like me teaches this, and not even I can have sex without it being rape, what does that say about you and your sex?

You’re terrified that you had to and have to be a rapist to get sex, you’re angry about it.

I was once in your shoes.

You’re fighting your subconscious, as long as you do, you will continue to act out in this way.

You use some kind of bizarre capitalistic argument amongst others… I was never terrified to spend a penny on a bazooka joe bubble gum. Nobody was.

You’re projecting what is necessarily true about sex to other aspects of life where it isn’t true.

Other consent violations in life spring forth from sexual consent violations, sexism the biggest and root problem for consent violation in general over the entire globe.

I wanted to add to this Karpel…

You’re trying to compare apples to apples when it’s about comparing apples to moon rocks …

Men and women hypothetically being discomforted by sexual signaling is not a unilateral issue, women are always MORE uncomfortable than men are.

You’re not changing goal posts, your ignoring the goal posts.

If men and women were equally averse to sexual signaling, I’d have a retarded argument. But that’s not the way the world works on this topic. Women truly are more averse to sexual signaling than men are.

‘Subconscious’ is a term widely used in different types of conversations. I have used it myself many times. But it is a ‘loose’ term and this can be readily noted in that even the greatest of philosophers or psychologists have never been able to conclusively define it. In other words, there is no empirical evidence to support a ‘subconscious’. When you go to a doctor because of a physiological problem he or she may in the course of diagnosis make a comment about your thinking. etc. But they will never come back with results that say the problem is in your subconscious and give you an appropriate prescription for it. Even psychiatrists who expressly treat mental disorders and emotional difficulties cannot conclusively define a patient’s problem as being a ‘subconscious’ one. In short, the subconscious is a supposed area of knowledge, not a confirmable one.

“Not a person like me, who has massive amounts of subconscious in my conscious mind”

“I see the world through my subconscious”

“You’re fighting your subconscious, as long as you do, you will continue to act out in this way”

Those are statements that cannot be proven in the empirical sense. They can only be regarded as statements anchored in suppositional waters, e.g., think of an anchor whose chain extends only to halfway between the boat and the floor of the ocean. It is the appearance of anchoring, but not the functionality of it.

It seems to me that your comments verge very near to being an objectification of women. I do not mean as is usually regarded like sex objects and such, I think your interpretations cast it more as a type of psycho-existential objectification.

"…humans have an existential need to know how to be and act in the world …that humans need a roadmap for living and that culture(s) serve as a psychological defense against the terror inherent in the human condition. Culture(s) serve this essential function by providing a worldview that may be internalized that offers standards that if achieved allows for the construction of self-esteem. Self-esteem, the conviction that one has value in a meaningful world, serves as defense against the potentially crippling anxiety that is resident in the human condition due to our cognitive complexity that allows for the realization of our mortality. The conviction that one is of value in a meaningful world (self-esteem) is proposed as a human need that is addressed and constructed culturally.__ A Psychology of Culture — Michael B. Salzman

I can take every line in that quote and find how it refers to your views especially regarding self-esteem: “The conviction that one is of value in a meaningful world (self-esteem) is proposed as a human need that is addressed and constructed culturally.” If there is a big element to be considered re incels, it is that of self-esteem. Incels are expressing a human need, a biological need not just for sex but for all the other emotional aspects experienced in gender relationships and via those to self-estimations . To not be able to experience that and the consequences of it is something that many people understand even if they’re not incels.

But when it comes to a cultural construct, such as the specific construct presented by the more radical elements of ‘inceldom’, then we are getting into some problems. We’ve already seen some of these problems in the violence that has been committed upon others by some incels and the negativity of commentary on some incel forums. That’s when the line from the above quote, “…a psychological defense against the terror inherent in the human condition” becomes a psychological offense against whatever is perceived as unjust and even inimical. That’s when it gets into a psycho-existential level of engagement. It’s no longer a personal, psychological issue to be addressed, it becomes an existential crisis.

Lastly, the case could be made that the rape scenario you describe is valid. But not as prevailing as you posit it. Rather than some type of ignored element, it is merely one of the many primitive existential constructs that humans have evolved from such as cannibalism and other traits which are no longer in the modern, human repertoire of considerations. You yourself are an example of the discarding of those traits in that you will not commit violence upon a woman to get sex, that to do so you would regard as regressive ignorance. If you are able to do that, then surely there are those, both men and women, who have discarded traits and one of those being the premise of ‘rape’ as you have described it.

As you have said: “If everyone is trained to use better communication for better outcomes sexually as a global community of intentional communities, then we can expect nothing less than better outcomes in all areas of our lives here.”

We may train this way and that, but evolution does the final training overall. Your views on this matter do little to ‘train’ because they are not founded on the sense of community for community, and casts women as lesser humans. They are founded on personal views, and as aforementioned, on concepts of the subconscious which itself has no specific constructs which have been proven, and for those of a more stringent analytical disposition, your claims of personal subconscious prowess would be suspicious, to say the least.

In summation, despite your claims, interpretations, and reasoning, there are just to many holes in your argument to qualify for even relative agreement, let alone universal. Not because of an unwillingness on the part of society to recognize it, but rather that such does little to advance or promote as you’ve noted, “better outcomes in all areas of our lives”. And of course, as you no doubt know, egoic addiction takes many forms, even among those who criticize such addiction. It can happen to the best of us.

Not all trees are weeping willows.

Here’s an article you may find interesting: 23 Former Incels Share Why They Left

What it says is that you are incredibly neurotic to the point of denying that there is such a thing as consensual sex between men and women
For you fail to accept that many women want sex just as enthusiastically as men and this fact alone completely invalidates your rape theory

Here we go again with the extreme generalisations that are entirely evidence free and have zero basis in reality
Women are not ALWAYS more uncomfortable but SOME women SOMETIMES are for a variety of different reasons
Have you bothered testing this theory of yours or are you merely assuming it is true because you want it to be

No he’s too far gone. Gotta cut em loose. I know several like this over the boards, and no amount of intervention will help… believe me. Just try to keep your own brain from turning into pancake batter, and go easy on the ‘philosophy’. Stuff can be extremely dangerous.