Posted on 05/31/2018 10:06:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
We all need more freedom to openly discuss—and engage in—sex. Instead, we all too often pounce on provocative opinions and hem in what is deemed "acceptable" bounds of debate. This is a shame.
Consider the rhetorical maelstrom created when George Mason University economist Robin Hanson recently suggested that the Toronto attack— in which a self-described incel (an involuntary celibate) mowed down 10 pedestrians — shows that we should worry not just about income inequality, but also the sexual inequality that is leaving too many men sexually frustrated. Hanson, whose blog Overcoming Bias is dedicated to raising uncomfortable questions that cut against ingrained thinking, mused that "cultural elites" might consider "redistribution" schemes that could help incels get a fair share of the action.
This was a provocative suggestion, no doubt. But Hanson wasn't really serious about it. He is a libertarian, after all, so talk of "redistribution" was more in the vein of a thought experiment. Still, many people were understandably offended by even the hint of a suggestion that men are "owed" sex, or that this particular man was somehow justified in his violence because of some societal failure to keep his sexual drive satiated. This was, after all, the second instance of incel violence in four years.
But almost everyone reacted poorly.
Liberals roundly pilloried Hanson. Slate's Jordan Weissman called him "America's creepiest economist," before doing an entirely tendentious interview with him with the aim of exposing Hanson as a nutjob. Wonkette's Robyn Pennacchia accused Hanson of "singing the songs of horny men." Motherboard's Samantha Cole declared that Hanson really wants "women to f--k violent men."
Such high dudgeon does little to advance the cause of mutual sexual understanding among men and women. The fact of the matter is that although the sexual revolution offered the possibility of more sexual fulfillment, it also produced new frustrations and challenges.
The New York Times' Ross Douthat, who defended Hanson (and came in for a heap of criticism as a result), rightly pointed out that the "Hefnerian" ethos that the revolution generated has made the "frequency and variety in sexual experience" the "summum bonum of the human condition." This might work for the "beautiful and rich and socially adept in new ways." However, it poses special problems for people who lack sexual draw and confidence.
Many feminists consider any discussion of the innate differences between male and female sexuality verboten. But it is hard to deny that evolution has wired the two sexes differently when it comes to sex. The qualitative sexual experience of men and women might be similar. But, by and large, as evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman points out, men tend to desire more sexual partners, need to know someone for less time before wanting to have sex with them, and have lower standards for sexual liaison. By contrast, women tend to be more discerning and discriminating (because they bear the brunt of producing offspring).
The sexual openness of today's liberated women often means that men's more easily stimulated sexuality is constantly triggered. However, social norms still put the onus on men to approach women and open themselves to rejection. The combination of heightened desire and increased risk from assertive women adds up to constant inner anxiety for many young, inexperienced men venturing into the sexual world. This doesn't mean that incels are right or owed, or that sex actually ought to be redistributed, or that incels are the "real" victims here. Indeed, incel forums can be dark and degraded places where misogyny and violent rhetoric often runs amuck. But ferocious and reflexive demonization from the left isn't helping matters. It is still necessary to understand the root cause of these new sexual pathologies.
Now, none of this exonerates conservatives, of course.
All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony. This obviously should not (and will not) happen, if for no other reason than it traps too many couples in emotionally and sexually dead marriages.
The trouble with the sexual revolution isn't that it happened, but that it was incomplete. The problem is not that sex has been over commodified as hardline feminists and conservatives (talk about strange bedfellows!) like to assert; the problem is that it hasn't been commodified enough. The sexual industry in the broadest sense hasn't matured enough yet to cater to the myriad and diverse needs of lonely single people (of both sexes). Where are the Dr. Ruths for single people facing confidence issues or looking for advice? Is it really a surprise that young men turn to each other for solace in the deep recesses of the dark web — and that the result is often very ugly?
Progressivism's promise is to move toward social arrangements that increase the number of winners and diminish the number of losers. But until we achieve a utopia where everyone wins, we'll have to figure out ways to offer relief to the losers. This will require liberals to start taking the plight of people like the incels seriously, and stop penalizing intellectual mavericks like Hanson who have the nerve speak up on their behalf. And it will require conservatives to stop romanticizing an imperfect past and look for viable solutions that don't involve turning back the clock.
This column originally appeared in The Week
There is no such thing as an incel because there are a lot of women who will hoe themselves out to any guy for the price of a drink.
Incel - that word hasn’t made it to the Oxford Dictionary yet, has it?
In my day, we just called them “Nerds.”
Not these days buddy.
Also, the essayist doesn't come out and say it, but two solutions to the supposed incel problem are sex robots and legalized and societally sanctioned prostitution. However, progressive types at the moment seem to believe that sex robots are oppressive to women and prostitutes are all sex slaves.
What to do?
In Cel.
Involuntary Celibate?
Huh?
Good grief.
Now, none of this exonerates conservatives, of course.This is godless and satanic anti-family propaganda. Utter Marxist gobbledegook. The traditional family is the cornerstone of any society, and its breakdown destroys society.
All too many social conservatives want to shut down pornography, tighten controls on prostitution, and restore puritanical norms from a time when men and women could only try to meet their sexual needs within the confines of life-long matrimony. This obviously should not (and will not) happen, if for no other reason than it traps too many couples in emotionally and sexually dead marriages. …
The root cause is that its getting more and more difficult to get sex or a girlfriend. Society tends to blame the incel themselves but the defeatist attitude their critics characterize them as having has always been around. What has changed is the growing accusatory atmosphere and the breakdown of family and community where the guidance of boys by masculine male peers and fathers has been replaced with the ‘advice’ of post-menopausal lesbian college professors which of course is hardly the most effective way to get laid
Through out human history there’s been 2 systems of mating: Polygamy and Monogamy.
Monogamy we all know and understand. It’s essentially a system were wives are distributed in equal numbers to men. A man willing to work hard enough will always be able to acquire a wife.
Polygamy is where the Alpha males get most of the women and the wifeless men were often quite violent about the unequal distribution of mates. Men with many wives seldom put a lot of work in rearing the children either. Polygamists civilizations tend to have a lot of violence with men who can’t acquire wives either having to be funneled into wars to get them killed or to steal their tribe’s enemies women.
BTW, this is the reason that Islam is inherently violent. Islam without Polygamy tends to be stable and somewhat productive. But such things never last since the Mohammad promoted Polygamy.
The sexual revolution destroyed the old system of Monogamous pair bonding ordered by Patriarchy and allowed women to chose which type of system they wanted. Now the vast majority of men through out history have always preferred Monogamy beside the few Alpha males at the top who prefer Polygamy. Women on the other hand always like to mate up in the social hierarchy and when given the choice they’d rather share a high status man than marry a lesser man and have him all to their own. So women chose Polygamy and young men are becoming violent because of it.
There’s also a good scientific reason that young men who can’t get laid to act violently: It’s attractive to women. The normal social hierarchy is easily hacked by men willing to who appear to be violent and the easiest way to appear to be violent, is to be violent as seen in America’s inner cities.
As far as I can tell, "incels" are a microminority of people who suffer severe autism or have some kind of IQ or other psychological problem. I don't think there are enough of them to warrant an article about, nor do I think we've ever not had them around.
There was supposed to be a grin after that.
Pickups almost never happen at bars anymore. I think you’re too old to understand how things work now.
>As far as I can tell, “incels” are a microminority of people who suffer severe autism or have some kind of IQ or other psychological problem. I don’t think there are enough of them to warrant an article about, nor do I think we’ve ever not had them around.
You’re quite wrong. 20 years ago this was the case. Not today. Polygamy is normal now for young women and thanks to tinder and other apps a large segment of men don’t get anything because most women are largely having sex with the same population of top tier men.
So then, you’ve never watched Jersey Shore I take it.
The author predicates the entire article on the blatantly untrue pretense that promiscuous sex is the highest human objective. Far from providing joy and lasting happiness, sexual relations outside of the marital union it was intended for will only lead to sorrow and bitter loneliness. It is tragic that over-education pseudo-intellectuals like the author can be fooled into giving up their intellect and reason in pursuit of an empty base instinct. They would rather be worms than men.
“In my day, we just called them “Nerds.””
It used to be called bachelor.
This is why people got married young.
Those marriages were stronger and lasted longer than things going now.
Pick up artistry is about teaching men who are close to being alpha-male types how to manipulate women in various ways to obtain casual sex with many women more efficiently. In terms of this article, they are teaching males on the beneficiary side of the sexual revolution how to take advantage of their status.
PUAs do prey on incels to sell their products, but actual incels who are just very undesirable to women will not benefit from the things they teach.
Pretty much.
Reason is loony tunes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.