‘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