Reddit Bans ‘Incel’ Group for Inciting Violence Against Women

[Jolly_Penguin]

It has nothing to do with "taboo". It has to do with power. People with power, authority, age can manipulate situations. In Jolly Penuin's world, I bet there would be a lot more male teachers in High School.

Age alone does not give you power over people younger than you.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They don't need to, because the same consent laws that cover heterosexual sex also cover homosexual sex.

I am quite surprised I had to point this out, did this really not occur to you?

I think you missed by meaning. I meant the people who are afraid of the gay. Like people who want to ban gay marriage, gay sex, etc. I don't know they would go about making such an argument, but I am surprised they haven't tried to make one based on "consent" given how so many others have when *yuck* is the real reason.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What nonsense. In the US, the age of consent varies between 16 and 18, depending on the state. Many states have 'Romeo and Juliet' exceptions for teens close in age. The exceptions recognize reality and also the imbalance of power and influence between individuals whose age is greater than 3 years or so.

I question your assumption that being 3 years older than someone by itself gives you power over them.

The same people who have no end of criticism for other cultures where young girls are often married off to much older men see no problem if it is a situation they might find themselves in: wanting to fiddle a 13 year old. Of course without even the sparse protections and rights of marriage. And of course ignoring that men often pursue much younger, minor boys. As do women, sometimes.

Whoa now, slow down there. You equate what I wrote above with wanting to diddle 13 year old girls/boys? What are your mental gymnastics on that one? And yes, marrying pre-pubescent women to grown men is something worthy of criticism, regardless of the culture. I think we can agree on that?

This is not about recognizing the 'maturity' of a barely pubescent girl so much as it is about trying to find ways to excuse and maintain access to too young sex partners who lack the agency or power to stick up for themselves.

OK. So why is it relevant if the man seeking this excuse to take advantage of these vulnerable women is 18 or 40? If you have no good reason, then go and re-read the post you are responding to here.

Wow.

Wow indeed.

 

[KeepTalking]

They don't need to, because the same consent laws that cover heterosexual sex also cover homosexual sex.

I am quite surprised I had to point this out, did this really not occur to you?

I think you missed by meaning. I meant the people who are afraid of the gay. Like people who want to ban gay marriage, gay sex, etc. I don't know they would go about making such an argument, but I am surprised they haven't tried to make one based on "consent" given how so many others have when *yuck* is the real reason.

Because it is so obvious that homosexual relations between two consenting adults is, well... a consenting act, that it would boggle the mind for anyone to try to make an argument to the contrary. A non-sentient animal, on the other hand, is entirely incapable of consenting to any sex act, even one with an animal of the same species. The same applies to fruit and vegetables, but since their sexual organs are entirely incompatible with those of humans, this is generally seen as less of an issue. Yes, I get that they also cannot consent to being killed and eaten, but we generally try to be humane about the killing portion of that these days, and fucking something to death is generally frowned upon in polite society.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because it is so obvious that homosexual relations between two consenting adults is, well... a consenting act, that it would boggle the mind for anyone to try to make an argument to the contrary.

It would certainly be a nonsensical argument, but I've seen nonsense on that level from such people before. I have heard them argue that homosexuality is a mental disorder, so maybe they could push that to argue that these people are sick and can't consent. Mix some religion into it and you may have a weird debate going.

A non-sentient animal, on the other hand, is entirely incapable of consenting to any sex act, even one with an animal of the same species.

Sure. That makes sense for a vegan maybe. But most who balk against beastiality and want lasws against it will turn around and eat a ham sandwich while wearing a fur coat. Consent isn't the real reason they are against beastiality. Its just an excuse. YUCK is the real reason.

The same applies to fruit and vegetables, but since their sexual organs are entirely incompatible with those of humans, this is generally seen as less of an issue.

I've heard some people make some interesting uses of cucumbers.

Yes, I get that they also cannot consent to being killed and eaten, but we generally try to be humane about the killing portion of that these days, and fucking something to death is generally frowned upon in polite society.

To death?! That's some hard core twisted kinky shit, and surely wouldn't cover all of beastiality justifying a ban on it entirely. Again, its the yuck factor that does that. Its disgusting, so people want it to be illegal. Its the same "purity" and "decency" and "taboo" gut reaction that at the lesser end of the scale leads people to be anti-gay and at a lesser still end of the scale anti-interracial, etc. Rational thought rarely comes into play, and arguments against are usually post-hoc after people are reacting with disgust and looking for reasons to ban.

 

[Angry Floof]

1. 41,000 men "largely populated by men who appear to hate women and in some cases advocate rape"? Are there really so many men who hate women so much?

The site, Fundies Say The Darndest Things (FSTDT.com) has an offshoot, Sexists Say..thing (SSTDT). Incels make up a good portion of the sexists, with crossovers to the Racists Say...things.

They have turned sour grapes into holy writ, with posts not only inciting violence against women, but demanding that rape not be illegal because sex is a God-given right, and the fact that women won't sleep with the incels is tantamount to genocide.

They honest expect that if they hold the door for a woman, she should come across with the sex for them.

"Chad" is the perfect, square-jawed, mighty-thewed frat boy that all women want, who does nothing but sex all day, and is so hot that women won't even protest his mistreatment of them. Unless "Chad" is black, then he's "Tyrone."

To me, the problem with giving 41,000 of these sociopaths a place to 'vent' means that every one that vents gets validated by 40,999 men who tell him he's correct in all his bile, and he should just start punching women for not sleeping with him.

These guys are so creepy even prostitutes turn them down... And they then blame the vagina.

^This.

Truly the underbelly of humanity, the most animal brained simpletons.

 

[KeepTalking]

It would certainly be a nonsensical argument, but I've seen nonsense on that level from such people before. I have heard them argue that homosexuality is a mental disorder, so maybe they could push that to argue that these people are sick and can't consent. Mix some religion into it and you may have a weird debate going.

You may actually be onto something there. Just please, don't muse about that particular angle of attack in front of any religious types. I doubt they have the nuance of thought to come up with it themselves, and we really don't need to give them any ammunition.

Sure. That makes sense for a vegan maybe. But most who balk against beastiality and want lasws against it will turn around and eat a ham sandwich while wearing a fur coat. Consent isn't the real reason they are against beastiality. Its just an excuse. YUCK is the real reason.

The same applies to fruit and vegetables, but since their sexual organs are entirely incompatible with those of humans, this is generally seen as less of an issue.

I've heard some people make some interesting uses of cucumbers.

Carrots, watermelon, etc.

Seems to be less of a yuck factor there, probably given the combination of the lack of identifiable sex organs and/or the requisite orifice to enable defecation on vegetables. In fact, it seems that there is less of a yuck factor when they are used to stimulate human sexual organs than when they are applied to the human rectum.

Yes, I get that they also cannot consent to being killed and eaten, but we generally try to be humane about the killing portion of that these days, and fucking something to death is generally frowned upon in polite society.

To death?!

My apologies, it came to mind after watching a recent episode of South Park. Can we pretend I didn't go there?

 

[Derec]

How is making fun and demonizing incels helping anything, other than stroking the egos of the rest of you?

With there being slightly more men than women (1.05 for 15-24 year olds in the US) among young adults, and with there being more voluntarily celibate women then men (for religious or career reasons), and there being many players around who are juggling multiple women (n-1 often being referred to as "side chicks"), it is mathematically inevitable that some men will be left behind. There is simply a supply-demand imbalance.
It is not our fault!

 

[KeepTalking]

How is making fun and demonizing incels helping anything, other than stroking the egos of the rest of you?

This thread is about "making fun and demonizing incels" in general? I didn't realize that. I thought it was about banning a specific group of incels for advocating violence against women. Those particular incels are deserving of our detest as well as any scorn (comedic or otherwise) that we heap upon them.

 

[RavenSky]

How is making fun and demonizing incels helping anything, other than stroking the egos of the rest of you?

This thread is about "making fun and demonizing incels" in general? I didn't realize that. I thought it was about banning a specific group of incels for advocating violence against women. Those particular incels are deserving of our detest as well as any scorn (comedic or otherwise) that we heap upon them.

What KeepTalking said

 

[Derec]

This thread is about "making fun and demonizing incels" in general?

I see the entire group being demonized because of a handful of troublemakers.

And just for the record, I have no issues getting service from sex workers.

 

[KeepTalking]

This thread is about "making fun and demonizing incels" in general?

I see the entire group being demonized because of a handful of troublemakers.

Once again, it was a specific group, and association with a group is voluntary. I see no problem with criticizing them because of their voluntary association with this hateful group. I haven't noticed anyone demonizing incels not associated with this group, but I am sure you will point them out if I am incorrect.

And just for the record, I have no issues getting service from sex workers.

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to point that out, as my post made no mention of sex workers. On the other hand, I was thinking of it, and nearly made a comment about sex workers, but thought better of it before posting.

How did you know what I was thinking?

Are you reading my mind?

OH, NO! PLEASE, DEREC GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

 

[Derec]

Once again, it was a specific group, and association with a group is voluntary. I see no problem with criticizing them because of their voluntary association with this hateful group. I haven't noticed anyone demonizing incels not associated with this group, but I am sure you will point them out if I am incorrect.

It may be voluntary, but it is also a large group, and troublemakers a small minority.

And just for the record, I have no issues getting service from sex workers.

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to point that out, as my post made no mention of sex workers. On the other hand, I was thinking of it, and nearly made a comment about sex workers, but thought better of it before posting.
How did you know what I was thinking?
Are you reading my mind?
OH, NO! PLEASE, DEREC GET OUT OF MY HEAD!

I wish, but it was mentioned upthread.

 

[bilby]

I am surprised the anti-gay people haven't come up with an argument against homosexuality based on "consent".

I think you must have been living under a rock.

The age of consent for homosexual men will be lowered to 16 but will be buffered by tough new penalties for child sexual assault by adults in positions of trust, under an overhaul of NSW sex crime laws.

The changes, which the Attorney-General, Bob Debus, will introduce in the lower house today, will create a uniform age of consent for men and women, bringing NSW into line with every other state except the Northern Territory.

At present the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse is 16 and for gay sex 18. But because lesbian sex is not defined under the law, this created an inequality between the ages of consent for homosexual women and homosexual men.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/06/1051987705006.html

Sex between men was illegal [in the United Kingdom] until 1967, when the Sexual Offences Act came into force making it legal for men aged 21 or above. In 1994 that age was lowered to 18 and in 2001 it was lowered again to 16 – making it the same as the age of consent for straight people.

(Source)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LP's "idea" seems to ignore the whole statutory thing. A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

The intent wasn't 45 with teen, but to make the sexually naive not legal for sex--45 with teen wouldn't be likely to happen if said teen had been properly taught in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Similar weird arguments are created about "Consent" when people argue for laws against beastiality. Apparently them humping you isn't consent, and apparently you need consent to have sex with them, but not to kill and eat them. It is the yuck factor at play here, and not anything to do with consent. I am surprised the anti-gay people haven't come up with an argument against homosexuality based on "consent".

Yeah, bestiality laws make no sense for this reason. To me, the relevant law should be animal cruelty. (And ownership--if it's not your animal you need the owner's permission.) If it's not being cruel to the animal I can't see a basis to make it illegal. Yuck isn't enough.

 

[Arctish]

LP's "idea" seems to ignore the whole statutory thing. A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

The intent wasn't 45 with teen, but to make the sexually naive not legal for sex--45 with teen wouldn't be likely to happen if said teen had been properly taught in the first place.

Sexual maturity isn't just a matter of knowing where babies come from and how to put on a condom. It's a matter of maturity in general. It's a rare teenager who's as mature as a twenty year old, and the younger, the rarer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I get that they also cannot consent to being killed and eaten, but we generally try to be humane about the killing portion of that these days, and fucking something to death is generally frowned upon in polite society.

But how often does it involve harming the animal? Fucking something to death would fall under animal cruelty to me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, I get that they also cannot consent to being killed and eaten, but we generally try to be humane about the killing portion of that these days, and fucking something to death is generally frowned upon in polite society.

But how often does it involve harming the animal? Fucking something to death would fall under animal cruelty to me.

Exactly. Most often I would assume the animal is pleased. Especially if it initiates the behaviour. Consent is being drummed up as a false argument because people know they can't legislate the yuck reflex. The same appears to be happening in regard to big age differences between humans fucking. If she isn't old enough to consent to sex, she isn't old enough to consent to sex. Him being 18 or 28 really shouldn't matter, but it does to us, because it disgusts us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LP's "idea" seems to ignore the whole statutory thing. A teen with a teen in most places other than the South is typically deemed acceptable. It is the 45 year old and the teen that'd leads to the consent and abuse of authority problem. You can't license for 45 on teen sex.... I mean other than in Loren's imagination can you.

The intent wasn't 45 with teen, but to make the sexually naive not legal for sex--45 with teen wouldn't be likely to happen if said teen had been properly taught in the first place.

Great idea, we can just teach maturity! LP is a genius!