[It's Over] My oneitis didn't show up to my orgy

BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
13,009
Online
74d 19h 21m
Well, part of me wants to know what it's like to have two Stacies lick my penis at the same time

But I've heard that threesomes with whores are logistically difficult since I have to switch condoms constantly, so that's why I haven't tried it yet. That and they cost twice as much.
Maybe that's only for high end whores, pretty sure you can negotiate something with less rules with some SEA or EE bitches, of course there's more risk though
 
Looksmaxxcel

Looksmaxxcel

Veteran
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Posts
1,425
Online
6d 10h 13m
We've been texting back and forth for 15 years. She's the most amazing person in this world. I can't just can't stop thinking about her.

Last weekend I hosted an orgy at my bachelor pad overlooking time square. All of the beckies and stacies showed up, as expected naturally, but every time the doorbell rang my heart skipped a beat that it could be her.

I was getting my dick sucked by one of the stacies and a high tier is becky was sucking on my balls, and I was thinking about why she hasn't texted me back. Then when I was about to cum, I got a text saying from her saying she thinks I'm really sweet, but she sees me as a friend and thinks of me like a brother. I couldn't even finish on stacy and becky's face. I asked all 20 girls and the guys (3 of my closest billionaire brocels) who were there to go home because of how upset I was.

It was at that moment that I realized how fucking over it is for me, buddy boyos. How can I cope with this? I'm thinking of just opening a window and jumping from the penthouse floor all the way down.

GOD, it's just so tough being an incel these days.







Change the genders and this is your average "femcel" post unironically.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

The most incel member of chads.co
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
13,813
Online
86d 1h 27m
Maybe that's only for high end whores, pretty sure you can negotiate something with less rules with some SEA or EE bitches, of course there's more risk though
Yeah. They are nuts.
 
Zettacel

Zettacel

-- Exhausted --
★★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
26,415
Online
65d 16h 55m
What an absolutely brutal fucking thread: I heavily relate.
 
ionlycopenow

ionlycopenow

Luminary
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 31, 2019
Posts
12,984
Online
74d 2h 24m
Damn man sorry you had to go through that
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Banned
-
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
4,869
Online
22d 2h 14m
inceldom isn't defined by where a dick goes, or by sexual orientation.
(WTF?! KEK) It's a binary state that's determined by you being selected out of mating due to your shit tier genetics.
Selected by whom?

BM while I understand you have a "selected out in general" overall sensation, realistically you should admit this is just an estimate of the vast majority which you have conveniently rounded up to 100% conceptually.

Scientifically though it's arrogance to imply we've actually tested enough numbers to make any absolute guarantees.

Nor to think we are so wise as to know the patterns/minds to guarantee an absolute rule.

I think it's just enough that we know about human nature that and minority who might fuck us or feel for us would just be so overwhelmingly scarce that we'd be unlikely to ever meet them, and even if we did, odds are they're so loving/understanding they met some other guy first and gave their love to him instead.

There is no "incel continuum."
You are not more, less or equally incel as another.
Of course there is.

While incel as a broad concept may simply mean "I would like to be having sex with someone who wants me" there's obviously layers here.

We might think in simple terms like that until a hypothetical fag comes along, at which point we add additional criteria like "and who I want".

Once we do that however it opens the door to any amount of standards, including the "and I just happen to only want 10s" annoying fags who might be able to land 9/10 women but reject them.

Obviously I don't think such an extreme example actually hangs out here, but it's to demonstrate the concept.

JFL! You're NOT incel because you say to yourself, "well, I don't consider oral and anal to have anything to do with celibacy, so..." That is some SJW tier faggot gymnastics.
My point here is that if you include those as 'sex' then "people who can perform sex" is the entire adult population, not just the entire adult female population.

IE you just acknowledge we're "volcel in respect to" people we do not pursue/accept.

You can take a stance like "it's okay to reject fags but it's wrong to reject landwhales" but should acknowledge it's just different degrees of volceldom and some see it as okay to not pursue either of them.

It's the same kind of bullshit that trannies pull off when they try to convince others that sexual orientation is on a spectrum and somehow flip the script to include fucking trannies in the ass or getting a blowjob by them "TOTALLY STRAIGHT BRO!" Some poor sods even fall for it and believe the garbage.
I don't think viewing it as a spectrum is BS, yes obviously sodomizing trannies is "gay bro" in relation to sodomizing women, but it's still more hetero-inclined than sodomizing hairy obese bear men.

Just as, for example, it's more straight to fuck a woman in the pussy than to fuck her in the ass, because you're emulating a homosexual act.

Just as, for example, it's kinda gay to get fucked in the ass by a woman wearing a strapon, but not as gay as getting fucked in the ass by a guy's cock.

You can oversimplify it as "all gay" if you like but I think there's definitely tiers if you think about it critically.

Volcel is when you ARE selected, but you reject them. It's that simple.
Selected by whom?

If a 1/10 landwhale shows sexual interest in you and you reject her, you're a volcel.
I wouldn't blame you for rejecting her, but you're still volcel, because she might be rejecting your other bros.
So what if a fag shows sexual interest in you and you reject him? That's also volcel to me.

I think we should come up with subgroping terms specifying "incel only in respect to women" vs "incel including men".

Yes, this is the slippery slope, and this is what you initially did by claiming by that rejecting gay sex means you're volcel.
GTFO with that faggotry.
It's not faggotry, it's pure semantics.

If you are saying anal/oral is still "sex" then if it's volcel to reject a 1/10 landwhale it's also volcel to reject a faggot.

Obviously the purveiling viewpoints here are more accepting of the latter than the former, but that doesn't change the logic here: we need more specific terms to acknowledge inceldom in respect to subgroup A of humanity if we do not acknowledge volceldom towards subgroup B of humanity.

You're purposefully muddying the waters and including variables that no one here in their right mind would factor into what incel means.
Circular reasoning: if someone disagrees with you they must be insane.

There you go again.
There is no motherfucking spectrum.
If a woman is attracted to you but not to me and you reject her, you're the volcel and I'm the incel.
That's it, really.
If a WHITE woman is attracted to you but not to me and you reject her, you're the volcel and I'm the incel.

This does not apply if you reject a NON-WHITE woman though because I am arbitrarily declaring it is not celibacy to fuck non-white women anyway.

Do you understand the point here? It's celibacy if you're not having ANY sex PERIOD, therefore it's volcel to reject ANY sex PERIOD. Absolute inceldom is rejecting NO sex period.

This is why the "no true incel" concept exists. Not just for the obvious fact we reject faggotry, and that many of us reject landwhales, but also because we are law-abiding non-rapists.

We voluntarily hold standards regarding the sex/gender of the humans we want to fuck, the consent of the humans we want to fuck, and probably a slew of other criteria like her weighing under 900 pounds.

Honestly 1 single person on the forum provide proof they even pursued a >800 pound woman or >80 year old woman. I'll wait.

Bunch of LARPers if you act like any signifificant number has actually been rejected by such an extreme case.

It's obviously not "all women" here. We're disgruntled because we just want to fuck women we have some attraction to. Which means we all (subconsciously or aware) pre-reject a lot of women by not pursuing them.

It's LARPing like crazy if guys here are saying to themselves "oh but I totally would, but I just 100% know EVEN SHE wouldn't let me fuck her"
>nope, you don't actually know that, but you know that if she did, you would hate yourself and want to rope after you coomed inside, assuming you even could get hard enough

This is all nonsense. You're partitioning things in a way that suits your "inceldom is a continuum" narrative.
You can't be incel towards women, but volcel towards men.
That makes absolutely no fucking sense.
I don't get how you are not grasping the logic here.

Let's use Will and Grace for example.
I am in their apartment.
I want to fuck Grace but she doesn't want to fuck me.
Will wants to fuck me but I don't want to fuck him.
ergo: I'm volcel to Will (voluntarily celibate in respect to sex with him) and incel to Grace (involuntarily celibate in respect to sex with her).

Well: except one could argue I'm actually volcel to Grace too in a way since I'm not attempting to rape her.
In the sense of "celibacy is lack of sex".
In the sense of "celibacy is lack of consenting lust/loving sex"...
then you remain celibate despite fucking paid escorts or raping kidnapped waitresses
in which case not engaging in either of those copes is not volcel.

Like I said, that's the same kind of bullshit that trannies use to try and "convert" desperate and lonely straight men towards their degeneracy.
I really have no idea where you're getting this.
You seem to be positing the idea that what makes men resort to fucking trannies is because they want to fit in at incel communities and not be mocked for being "volcel" or something.

The kind of logic only makes sense if you actually embrace an "ascend at all costs" attitude.
That kind of desperation is certainly joked about here but I don't really think that's something people truly embrace as a whole.
Obviously "at all costs" precludes faggotry so it's only partially embraced.

Pointing this out isn't saying "so embrace true desperation 100% and don't just fuck a tranny, fuck a dozen hairy niggers in prison"
It's more like saying "okay the LARPing is fun, but just admit you have standards, fren, it's okay to admit you have some pride and self-restraint"
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. Clandops
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
7,929
Online
86d 6h 33m
Selected by whom?
The female you're attracted to and want to have sex with.

BM while I understand you have a "selected out in general" overall sensation, realistically you should admit this is just an estimate of the vast majority which you have conveniently rounded up to 100% conceptually.

Scientifically though it's arrogance to imply we've actually tested enough numbers to make any absolute guarantees.

Nor to think we are so wise as to know the patterns/minds to guarantee an absolute rule.

I think it's just enough that we know about human nature that and minority who might fuck us or feel for us would just be so overwhelmingly scarce that we'd be unlikely to ever meet them, and even if we did, odds are they're so loving/understanding they met some other guy first and gave their love to him instead.
Don't be asinine, for fuck sake. You don't need to go ask out every single female on planet earth and rejected by them just so you can say, "YUP! I'M INCEL!"

Of course there is.

While incel as a broad concept may simply mean "I would like to be having sex with someone who wants me" there's obviously layers here.

We might think in simple terms like that until a hypothetical fag comes along, at which point we add additional criteria like "and who I want".

Once we do that however it opens the door to any amount of standards, including the "and I just happen to only want 10s" annoying fags who might be able to land 9/10 women but reject them.

Obviously I don't think such an extreme example actually hangs out here, but it's to demonstrate the concept.
No, incel is not a broad concept and there is no "continuum," there are no "layers" to this. Where the fuck are you getting all of this from? You're probably the only person in here who thinks of inceldom as on a continuum.

Nobody is "more", "less", or "equally" incel as another. JFL @ this bizarre idea. It opens the floodgates for all kinds of pro-gay, pro-trans, and pro-fakecel points of view, some of which you've already espoused.

My point here is that if you include those as 'sex' then "people who can perform sex" is the entire adult population, not just the entire adult female population.

IE you just acknowledge we're "volcel in respect to" people we do not pursue/accept.

You can take a stance like "it's okay to reject fags but it's wrong to reject landwhales" but should acknowledge it's just different degrees of volceldom and some see it as okay to not pursue either of them.
Are you being dumb on purpose, or this is an unfortunate accident? There are no degrees to this. You're inceldom is not contingent upon your rejection of sex from those you're not sexually oriented towards. If I'm swimming with a dolphin and it decides to fuck me in the ass and I somehow escape, that doesn't make me a "volcel." But according to you, I'm volcel against dolphins.

Do you have ANY idea how fucking stupid that is?

I don't think viewing it as a spectrum is BS, yes obviously sodomizing trannies is "gay bro" in relation to sodomizing women, but it's still more hetero-inclined than sodomizing hairy obese bear men.

Just as, for example, it's more straight to fuck a woman in the pussy than to fuck her in the ass, because you're emulating a homosexual act.

Just as, for example, it's kinda gay to get fucked in the ass by a woman wearing a strapon, but not as gay as getting fucked in the ass by a guy's cock.

You can oversimplify it as "all gay" if you like but I think there's definitely tiers if you think about it critically.
This is where your conceptual problem lies. Your base and starting point is that sexuality is on a continuum, and from there you conclude (naturally) that inceldom must also be on a continuum. This is why you come to bizarre and faggy conclusions like "not fucking a man as incel makes you a volcel, if the man wants to have to sex with you."

EXCUSE ME, WHAT?!

Selected by whom?
WTF? The females who want to have sex with you, that's who.

So what if a fag shows sexual interest in you and you reject him? That's also volcel to me.

I think we should come up with subgroping terms specifying "incel only in respect to women" vs "incel including men".
OK, this is EXACTLY the point where the conversation comes to a grinding, screeching halt. Anything you've said after this is completely invalidated.

@GoffSystemQB @mental_out @knajjd @SergeantIncel

Please clean up this mess before people start calling others volcel for not fucking trannies and faggots in the ass and mouth. Maybe you all need to have a serious conversation about some foundations and definitions, because, as you can see, some people like to run amok with their own crazy ideas.

@Wizard32 How the fuck did you even go under the radar for this long? It's almost incredible.
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Banned
-
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
4,869
Online
22d 2h 14m
The female you're attracted to and want to have sex with.
So you're admitting you are only judging "involuntary" in respect to the subgroup of females to whom you are attracted?

If that's the distinction then you face the problem of "I'm incel because only 9/10 stacies want to fuck me but I only want to fuck 10/10 stacies" guys.

Don't be asinine, for fuck sake. You don't need to go ask out every single female on planet earth and rejected by them just so you can say, "YUP! I'M INCEL!"
You don't even need to ask anyone out, really, since pre-rejection is an understood thing based on body language and stuff. Though misinterpreting it can result in false positives or false negatives.

But what you are doing is judging being incel towards those whom have pre-rejected you as you perceive it, or those you haven't met who would... but you can't necessarily perfectly extrapolate all hypothetical rejections.

No, incel is not a broad concept and there is no "continuum," there are no "layers" to this.
Where the fuck are you getting all of this from?
Maybe this will help you understand the layers concept...

"Incel A" is willing to have sex with 99% of the female population, but hasn't managed to ascend.
"Incel B" is willing to have sex with 92% of the female population, but hasn't managed to ascend.

We view "Incel A" as "more incel" in this case, because his celibacy is involuntary toward a larger segment of the foid population. He is merely 1% volcel.

Incel B otoh is incel towards a slightly smaller segment: he is 8% volcel.


You're probably the only person in here who thinks of inceldom as on a continuum.
I'm not. You need to lurk longer. There's a reason terms like 'truecel' v 'fakecel' are bandied about, why people joke about alleged "volcels" being coping incels, alleged "incels" being coping volcels, etc.

The truth is murkier: there's simply no hard line as there is no perfect knowledge of inner motivations behind choice as they relate to seeking sexual opportunities.

Nobody is "more", "less", or "equally" incel as another.
JFL @ this bizarre idea.
There's nothing bizarre about this, the state of your celibacy is more voluntary the more sexual options you refuse to explore.

It opens the floodgates for all kinds of pro-gay, pro-trans, and pro-fakecel points of view
You have not explained how.
Your only argument for this would be some silly "I had better try to fuck a tranny or else .co members will accuse me of being volcel!" rationale.

How celibacy is classified would have no impact on who

Are you being dumb on purpose, or this is an unfortunate accident?
There are no degrees to this.
You're inceldom
kek

is not contingent upon your rejection of sex from those you're not sexually oriented towards.
Celibacy is still a choice even if you make it in regard to those you are not attracted to.

We don't describe as escort as celibate just because she's not attracted to her clients, for example.

If I'm swimming with a dolphin and it decides to fuck me in the ass and I somehow escape, that doesn't make me a "volcel."
Sure it does, but only in respect to the dolphin.

Which is okay. Everyone's a mix of volcel and incel, regardless of whether the final outcome is a celibate or a sexhaver.

But according to you, I'm volcel against dolphins.

Do you have ANY idea how fucking stupid that is?
It makes complete sense.

Why does that classification bother you?

This is where your conceptual problem lies.
Your base and starting point is that sexuality is on a continuum,
and from there you conclude (naturally) that inceldom must also be on a continuum.
Incorrect. You can define "celibacy" in various ways. You can have an absolute definition of a "celibate" determined by their behaviors.

The issue with "voluntary" or "involuntary" is you're no longer describing behaviors, but rather INTENTIONS.

Involuntary means "I am not capable of having sex"

Voluntary means "I am capable of having sex"

You can either define these in absolute terms ("capable of having sex with anything" v "incapable of having sex with anything") or specific terms ("capable of having sex with cute girls" v "incapable of having sex with cute girls".

Due to various ways to use it, it makes sense that we come up with more specific wordwraps to convey these different possible meanings.

This is why you come to bizarre and faggy conclusions like "not fucking a man as incel makes you a volcel, if the man wants to have to sex with you." EXCUSE ME, WHAT?!
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is "faggy" to acknowledge our voluntary choice in not doing these things.

I am for example, capable of consenting to having sex with a man. I could spread my anus and let him ram his dick into me.

The idea generally fills me with revulsion though, so it's not something I am interested in pursuing.

Even the idea of doing something like that for generous financial compensation feels icky.

But ultimately, I am letting my feelings inform me to make a choice as to whether or not I want to do a thing.

I guess you could take some kind of stance like "I'm not capable of choosing to spread my anus for a man" if you like, but that shows a sense of causality disconnect between behavior and conscious mind.

What about "I'm capable of choosing, and choose no" upsets you so much?

WTF? The females who want to have sex with you, that's who.
If the female selected you out of mating then why do you describe her as wanting to have sex with you? That's contradictory.

OK, this is EXACTLY the point where the conversation comes to a grinding, screeching halt. Anything you've said after this is completely invalidated.

@GoffSystemQB @mental_out @knajjd @SergeantIncel

Please clean up this mess before people start calling others volcel for not fucking trannies and faggots in the ass and mouth.

Maybe you all need to have a serious conversation about some foundations and definitions, because, as you can see, some people like to run amok with their own crazy ideas.

@Wizard32 How the fuck did you even go under the radar for this long? It's almost incredible.
What do you think is invalidated here? You're not explaining your thinking.

What you seem to be missing is I'm distinguishing between two tiers of vol/invol : objective (everyone) and subjective (individual).

I view subjective (case by case) classification as more technically useful because simplifying a person as objectively incel or objectively incel in an ABSOLUTE state is irrational: nobody on this forum is going to fit those terms.

If we go "below absolute" my point is simply that we apply a term specifying what % fraction we mean.

For example, the prefix "milli-" refers to 1/1000.

If one were to say "millivolcel" it would probably mean you are volcel to 1/1000 of the population, but willing to fuck the other 99.9% of it.

Obviously all of us here are more volcel than that. We're probably unwilling to fuck at least 50% of the population (men) so a term like "demivolcel" (half) would be appropriate.

Probably even a larger portion since I don't think anyone here is actually willing to fuck 100% of foids all the time. We would all rule out varying %s of them due to age, them not consenting, personality or body, bad setting, etc.


This is something we can't easily put a number on, so rather than get a prefix based on a number we could look for something vaguer but which still communicates that a vastly smaller % of the female population would be wiling to fuck us, and an even smaller % of them would like it, compared to some other frame of reference like 'average 5/10 guy'.

Of course with the way hypergamy goes, even average 5/10 guy is probably an "incel" too nowadays, so perhaps the frame of reference is "average looks required to be a more-than-tri-annual-sex-haver?
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. Clandops
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
7,929
Online
86d 6h 33m
@Wizard32 I don't know why I'm even entertaining a reply, nor why you haven't been banned yet, since you've already admitted that you can be "incel towards gays and trannies" and made inceldom into a mockery.

You're treading psyop territory now.

So you're admitting you are only judging "involuntary" in respect to the subgroup of females to whom you are attracted?
No, don't twist my words. It's involuntary with respect to being a straight male.

Inceldom isn't a homosexual problem. It's not a transsexual problem either. Stop the gay and tranny psyop.

If that's the distinction then you face the problem of "I'm incel because only 9/10 stacies want to fuck me but I only want to fuck 10/10 stacies" guys.
That's a comical extreme case to illustrate what being volcel means.

You don't even need to ask anyone out, really, since pre-rejection is an understood thing based on body language and stuff. Though misinterpreting it can result in false positives or false negatives.

But what you are doing is judging being incel towards those whom have pre-rejected you as you perceive it, or those you haven't met who would... but you can't necessarily perfectly extrapolate all hypothetical rejections.
Don't try to backtrack on what you said. It was clear what you meant. You may not need to verbally ask every woman, but that's what you were getting at.

On one hand, you have an extremely lax definition of incel that includes subcategories of what you're "incel towards" including homosexuals and transexuals, and the other you have a very rigid one for a straight male that says you can only be "incel as a straight male towards women" if you've exhausted all of your options.

That, as you obviously know, is impossible, so you use that conveniently as an excuse to shoehorn in your "inceldom as a continuum" bullshit and open the door to absurdities like "incel towards women who don't want to fuck you, but volcel towards gay men who do."

Twisting words to suit your case. This is classic propaganda. The psyop continues...

Maybe this will help you understand the layers concept...

"Incel A" is willing to have sex with 99% of the female population, but hasn't managed to ascend.
"Incel B" is willing to have sex with 92% of the female population, but hasn't managed to ascend.

We view "Incel A" as "more incel" in this case, because his celibacy is involuntary toward a larger segment of the foid population. He is merely 1% volcel.

Incel B otoh is incel towards a slightly smaller segment: he is 8% volcel.
Same BS as before. Inceldom isn't a continuous variable, it's a categorical one.

I'm not. You need to lurk longer. There's a reason terms like 'truecel' v 'fakecel' are bandied about, why people joke about alleged "volcels" being coping incels, alleged "incels" being coping volcels, etc.

The truth is murkier: there's simply no hard line as there is no perfect knowledge of inner motivations behind choice as they relate to seeking sexual opportunities.
The truth is much simpler than that. Those prefixes are clearly defined. Truecel is somebody who is so ugly they probably couldn't ascend even through betabuxxing. A fakecel is another term for a larping normie/chadlite/chad/regular sex haver.

You're intentionally obfuscating simple truths to make room for your bullshit about "incel continuum" and "incel towards x, but volcel towards y" nonsense.

There's nothing bizarre about this, the state of your celibacy is more voluntary the more sexual options you refuse to explore.
False. I'm a heterosexual male. No amount of pedantics and mental gymnastics is going to say that I'm "volcel towards gays who would want to have gay sex with me."

The psyop continues...

You have not explained how.
Your only argument for this would be some silly "I had better try to fuck a tranny or else .co members will accuse me of being volcel!" rationale.

How celibacy is classified would have no impact on who
I didn't need to. You've been doing that well enough all on your own when you redefined incel and volcel to include faggots and trannies.

Mobile autocomplete. That was funny, though ngl.

Celibacy is still a choice even if you make it in regard to those you are not attracted to.

We don't describe as escort as celibate just because she's not attracted to her clients, for example.
Intrasexuality celibacy is completely different from intersexuality celibacy.

The latter isn't even a valid term. It's complete nonsense to go around saying something like, "I'm a straight male who has regular sex with females, but I haven't had sex with a man, therefore, I'm 'gay celibate'."

That is absolute horseshit and makes no sense. That's not how we use terms like celibacy, heterosexual, homosexual. But you know this.

The psyop continues...

Sure it does, but only in respect to the dolphin.

Which is okay. Everyone's a mix of volcel and incel, regardless of whether the final outcome is a celibate or a sexhaver.
Fucking hell, more nonsense. We don't go around calling everybody who doesn't fuck their pet dog an animal volcel.

@gymletethnicel Hey brocel, did you fuck your dog before you had to sell it? If not, you're a volcel, according to this degenerate who wants to redefine everything.

It makes complete sense.

Why does that classification bother you?
Maybe in your warped mind it makes perfect sense.

It bothers me for a number of reasons, but the top two are that it makes terms meaningless and reduced to absurdity when we can all just define them how we like, and also that opens the door for faggots and trannies to walk in and find conceptual space here. But you know this.

The psyop continues...

Incorrect. You can define "celibacy" in various ways. You can have an absolute definition of a "celibate" determined by their behaviors.

The issue with "voluntary" or "involuntary" is you're no longer describing behaviors, but rather INTENTIONS.

Involuntary means "I am not capable of having sex"

Voluntary means "I am capable of having sex"

You can either define these in absolute terms ("capable of having sex with anything" v "incapable of having sex with anything") or specific terms ("capable of having sex with cute girls" v "incapable of having sex with cute girls".

Due to various ways to use it, it makes sense that we come up with more specific wordwraps to convey these different possible meanings.
There are only two ways you can define celibacy: voluntary and involuntary.

Full stop.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is "faggy" to acknowledge our voluntary choice in not doing these things.
YOU. I'm getting the idea from you.

You're the one who wants to convince us that refusing sex with a man makes us volcel. You've been literally saying exactly that.

I am for example, capable of consenting to having sex with a man. I could spread my anus and let him ram his dick into me.

The idea generally fills me with revulsion though, so it's not something I am interested in pursuing.

Even the idea of doing something like that for generous financial compensation feels icky.

But ultimately, I am letting my feelings inform me to make a choice as to whether or not I want to do a thing.

I guess you could take some kind of stance like "I'm not capable of choosing to spread my anus for a man" if you like, but that shows a sense of causality disconnect between behavior and conscious mind.
The psyop continues...

What about "I'm capable of choosing, and choose no" upsets you so much?
Twisting words and their meanings to allow room for invasive and malicious elements and justify their presense is what upsets me.

It's clear as day that you're pushing a gay agenda here.

If the female selected you out of mating then why do you describe her as wanting to have sex with you? That's contradictory.
Don't try and twist words again. One was in reference to incel, while the other in reference to volcel.


What do you think is invalidated here? You're not explaining your thinking.
Your arguments.

I've already explained more than is sufficient.

What you seem to be missing is I'm distinguishing between two tiers of vol/invol : objective (everyone) and subjective (individual).

I view subjective (case by case) classification as more technically useful because simplifying a person as objectively incel or objectively incel in an ABSOLUTE state is irrational: nobody on this forum is going to fit those terms.

If we go "below absolute" my point is simply that we apply a term specifying what % fraction we mean.

For example, the prefix "milli-" refers to 1/1000.

If one were to say "millivolcel" it would probably mean you are volcel to 1/1000 of the population, but willing to fuck the other 99.9% of it.

Obviously all of us here are more volcel than that. We're probably unwilling to fuck at least 50% of the population (men) so a term like "demivolcel" (half) would be appropriate.

Probably even a larger portion since I don't think anyone here is actually willing to fuck 100% of foids all the time. We would all rule out varying %s of them due to age, them not consenting, personality or body, bad setting, etc.


This is something we can't easily put a number on, so rather than get a prefix based on a number we could look for something vaguer but which still communicates that a vastly smaller % of the female population would be wiling to fuck us, and an even smaller % of them would like it, compared to some other frame of reference like 'average 5/10 guy'.

Of course with the way hypergamy goes, even average 5/10 guy is probably an "incel" too nowadays, so perhaps the frame of reference is "average looks required to be a more-than-tri-annual-sex-haver?
The psyop continues...
 
Last edited:
gymletethnicel

gymletethnicel

Incel Cinematic Universe Reality 2020
★★★★★
Joined
May 8, 2019
Posts
13,319
Online
178d 21h 27m
@gymletethnicel Hey brocel, did you fuck your dog before you had to sell it? If not, you're a volcel, according to this degenerate who wants to redefine everything
:feelskek:
 
gymletethnicel

gymletethnicel

Incel Cinematic Universe Reality 2020
★★★★★
Joined
May 8, 2019
Posts
13,319
Online
178d 21h 27m
Absolutely insane, isn't it?
@gymletethnicel, you have received 100% warning from the moderators for not fucking your dog.

Sincerely,
@knajjd
 
Wizard32

Wizard32

Banned
-
Joined
May 20, 2018
Posts
4,869
Online
22d 2h 14m
@Wizard32 I don't know why I'm even entertaining a reply, nor why you haven't been banned yet,
since you've already admitted that you can be "incel towards gays and trannies"
Inceldom = the inability to have sex.
Volceldom = choosing not to pursue sex which is possible

Examples:
  1. I am incel in respect to Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe because she died in 1847, over 100 years ago. It is impossible for me to fuck her because time travel is impossible.
  2. I am volcel in respect to Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch, because both women are still alive, and I could hypothetically fuck them. I have made no effort to fuck them. That is a voluntary choice. If I had a genuine desire to fuck Watson or Lynch, I could dedicate my life to courting one in hopes of the slim SLIM (negligible) chance they would reciprocate.
(Or, for more feasible chances: to stalking one, breaking into her home and raping her.)
I have voluntarily chosen not to pursue either of those paths, because my interest in fucking either actress (considerable as it is) is not enough to motivate me to go to those lengths. It would be too much effort in either case (even the slightly lower-effort latter one) and also I'm still a bit of a bluepilled moralfag in regard to wanting women's consent and not really wanting to be a rapist which means it would be effort to be at war with myself to do that.​
I would fuck either if she showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, but only because that takes no effort to bring about. )

I have not put effort toward pursuing romantic connections (or rapes) with gays/trannies or Emma Watson.

In both of the first two cases though, that has more to do with my lack of interest in doing so than the lack of feasibility in doing so. IE if a gay/tranny showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, I would refuse.

There are at least three groups of factors which influence the choice to be voluntarily celibate in respect to a potential sex partner:

A) the investment in time/effort to create an opportunity for it​
B) the % chance of that investment resulting in success​
C) the % chance that success results in satisfaction​

To compare:
Watson/Lynch would be (a) high-investment (b) low% success (c) high % satisfaction​
Gays/trannies would be (a) low-investment (b) high % success (c) low % satisfaction​

The differences in motivation toward my voluntary choice to pursue neither of them could be described with certain prefixes modifying the adjective "voluntary" but it doesn't change the fact that my choice to pursue neither of these makes me voluntarily celibate to both groups.

If I were to guess at a term of distinction here, here is an attempt:
"I am regrettably voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of fucking Watson and Lynch"​
"I am happily voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of spreading my asshole and letting another man put his dick into it"​

My struggle here is how I can shorten these ideas into more concise terminology and I'm seeking suggestions from gentlemen such as yourself BM, in attaining that conciseness.

and made inceldom into a mockery.
Thinking of "incel" by itself as an adequate term of usefulness is worthy of mockery.

I think we all realize the necessity of additional requirements in defining this culture beyond that of what the word itself implies, but have not risen to that struggle to construct a more accurate word (or phrase, an acronym ideally) to represent the additional parameters we have informally reached consensus on.

You're treading psyop territory now.
What do you mean NOW? All my posts are psy-ops. Everyone's post is a psy-op. The definition of psy-op is so broad that it basically covers all sharing of opinions in conversations and forums?
"convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning"​

How exactly do you even write words without trying to influence other people? Type random things like some monkey?

No, don't twist my words. It's involuntary with respect to being a straight male.

Inceldom isn't a homosexual problem. It's not a transsexual problem either. Stop the gay and tranny psyop.
"with respect to a straight male" is a parameter I am saying we need to add to the root term to specify that parameter. There is nothing in the construction of the word (etymology, fren) to actually indicate this context.

We see some attempt at this in terms like "femcel" which attempt to describe "an incel who is female" except it's incompetent as hell because you can't just fucking chop off "in" like that, "femcel" would be short for "female celibate" and you would need "femincel" to mean "female involuntary celibate". Shortening words to two-letter abbreviation prefixes is one thing but you can't just fucking omit it.

There is also nothing even in "femincel" to indicate female with heterosexual preferences" so the term would encapsulate describe both straight and lesbian women. You'd need ANOTHER prefix to specify the gender preference the woman had.

The same would be true of us. That's one of the problems which exists with https://incels.wiki/w/Malecel

In the construction of this term there is perceived the necessity of specifying the sex/gender of the celibate person via a prefix, but it is inconsistent because they forgoe the need of the "in-" prefix by saying it only applies to involuntary (same problem as "femcel") plus also say it only applies to heterosexual ones.

To apply to male incels the term should be "maleincel" or "manincel" and to convey you'd have to say something like "hetmanincel" or "homanincel".

That's a comical extreme case to illustrate what being volcel means.
You're correct: and I do that because extreme cases are easier to understand in respect to the created problem.

An extreme hypothetical case like that we can all agree on defeats the spirit of our community despite it's technical accuracy.

Using a less extreme case, people might start to have mixed opinions on whether it falls within the spirit of the community or not, which is why I avoid it.

But using the extreme fake case helps to establish how there is no authority in shaping boundaries, and thus the eventualy problems which will happen in non-extreme genuine cases of gray borders.

Don't try to backtrack on what you said. It was clear what you meant.
You may not need to verbally ask every woman, but that's what you were getting at.
"ask every woman" is basically the extreme/fake example I use to make a point.

The point I'm illustrating here is that there are varying degrees of effort people can put in towards accomplishing certain outcomes, ranging from zero effort to maximal effort.

Maximal effort is not to be expected (for one, they interfere with the potential to make effort towards other sex partners, or other hobbies) but the reason I point out examples of maximal effort is to make the point that we have not actually set out parameters of how much effort someone actually needs to make before we use their failure as proof of "inability".

The other half of that is we have no set minimum effort below which lack of trying counts as "voluntary refusal" or "never even attempted".

This touches on things I've seen in other threads like guys saying "you didn't even try to gym-max" or "you never asked a girl out" or "you don't even try to make eye contact with girls", etc.

There is a merit of truth for that in mid-tier attractiveness, while it's just tilting at windmills for low-tier attractiveness. At a metaphor: whether you're just struggling up a slope (Chad rolls downhill), or reaching a sheer unscaleable wall.

Slope/Wall are of course discrete classifications which do not accurately represent reality: a slight 1-degree slope is essentially flat, while an 89-degree slope is essentially vertical, but not TECHNICALLY.

you have an extremely lax definition of incel that includes subcategories of what you're "incel towards"
That is essential. By default, celibacy is celibacy in regard to anyone you could possibly have sex with.

you have a very rigid one for a straight male that says you can only be "incel as a straight male towards women" if you've exhausted all of your options.
What I mean by this is there are differing degrees of "involuntariness".

There is "I asked the girl out and she rejected me" involuntary
There is "I don't even ask the girl out" involuntary.
In the 1st case, you made a voluntary choice to make an attempt 99% likely to be fruitless, but you still made the attempt.
By putting more voluntary effort into the pursuit, you are thus "more involuntary" when the outcome remains to be celibacy.

This of course is more complex than "effort in", because effort is not the only parameter, so is attractiveness.

1/10 guy A who spends 10 hours trying to woo a girl is thus still "more incel" than 6/10 guy B who spends 100 hours trying to woo a girl.
Even though B put in more voluntary effort, A's chances would've been lower even if he spent 1000 hours on her.
A formula of genes x effort must be taken into account when evaluating a weight for voluntary efforts.

That, as you obviously know, is impossible,
so you use that conveniently as an excuse to shoehorn in your "inceldom as a continuum" bullshit
Examples to absurd lengths are used merely to illustrate the context of different choices made being an aspect of voluntary and involuntary outcomes.

and open the door to absurdities like
"incel towards women who don't want to fuck you,
but volcel towards gay men who do."
You can avoid this by establishing an "incel towards people you're attracted to" classification
(ie allowing for volceldom towards people you don't want to fuck, not a disqualifier)​
I would value that classification but lack imagination for how to describe it.
Do you have some ideas on this BM?

Although I still question how useful this is as a concept, because that does allow for "I'm incel towards gigastacies regardless of being volcel towards stacylites and beckys" membership of various chads.

I believe the most useful thing in respect to our culture and community here is an additional parameter where we have some kind of cutoff.

IE "volceldom towards your looksmatch or above disqualifies you".

But establishing a parameter like that, as important as it is, should be reflected in our actual construction of a term via a prefix chosen to reflect it.

That's where I struggle. It would be easy if I could suggest something but I think first we need to describe this with a short phrase before we contemplate shortening it further into something monosyllabic or disyllabic.

Twisting words to suit your case. This is classic propaganda. The psyop continues...

Same BS as before. Inceldom isn't a continuous variable, it's a categorical one.
You can call it propaganda/psyop that I am attempting to convey my opinions about the importance of word construction into the minds of others, I will readily admit to that.

What I would point out here:
inceldom as the WORD CONSTRUCTION conveys, is definitely a continuum
You can define a culture/group as categorical, but in doing so, you are defining a subcategory of inceldom which deserves a more potent descriptor with components reflecting this refined meaning.

The truth is much simpler than that.
Those prefixes are clearly defined.
Truecel is somebody who is so ugly they probably couldn't ascend even through betabuxxing.
A fakecel is another term for a larping normie/chadlite/chad/regular sex haver.
Ascend with WHOM though? We need to specify "with females" in the word construct if that is our parameter. We also need to specify "and be male" somehow in the word construction.

Also: betabux = escortcel in essence, and I think it's difficult to prove there is actually a case of "no whore in the world would fuck me". There is more like a descending ranking of 100% of whores will fuck me to shrinking % to the point where maybe <0.1% of whores will fuck you.

I don't think there's any absolute guarantee of 0% whores though. It's more like the uglier you are, the more money it would cost. I think there are women on earth who will fuck ANYTHING (even ugliest man in world) for enough money. Or even marry the ugliest betabux man if he were rich enough.

"Trucel" as a construct has no root prefix indicating the maleness or heterosexuality of the subject being spoken of. That's the problem I have with it. There seems to be a sense of "implied prefixes" because "it is just known" that we mean it to be a sub-subject of an already established subject.

I find that limiting because it prevents us from making wider-scale comparisons.

The INTENT of both terms is clear, but the reality is that there is going to be a murky/gray group of men where whether or not they are "true" or "fake" may not be agreed upon by others, or even known to the man in question.

To say otherwise implies that 100% of men who say they are celibate are 100% obvious in their potential capacity to have sex or not have sex.

To accuse someone of LARPing implies that they know this reality themselves.

While it is true that there are men who believe they can have sex and pretend they believe they cannot, there are also men who are simply unsure. That's actually a regression/progression in attitude many men go through:

  1. they start out blue-pilled thinking "I can find love, a girl will appreciate me and fuck me"
  2. and then go red-pilled "I can find sex, a girl will throw me a pity-fuck occasionally when she is depressed about chad being busy fucking a hotter girl that night"
  3. and finally black-pilled "she won't do it unless there is a financial incentive because she finds me repulsive".

Those whose situation are the most grim (1/10) often start out blackpilled (or at least get there much earlier in life) because they are not close enough to the middle to hold onto slim/false hopes for the same amount of time that 2s/3s/4s manage to. The latter are able to remain in denial for longer and be genuinely confused about their chances.

The depressing state of hypergamy is even those who do have chance of sex, the amount of effort/lucky it would take makes them genuinely feel incel, and because of that it is unfair to describe them as "fake".

Where to draw that true/fake line is something we are unlikely to universally agree upon. Yes, we all agree that 8/10 chadlite is a fakecel and we all agree that 1/10 is truecel, but you will not find universal agreement about what middle number to draw the line at, or even how to classify men according to numbers.


You're intentionally obfuscating simple truths to make room for your bullshit about "incel continuum" and "incel towards x, but volcel towards y" nonsense.
The existence of gray middles is a simple truth you appear to be obfuscating to make room for your "discrete incel" idea.

False. I'm a heterosexual male. No amount of pedantics and mental gymnastics is going to say that I'm "volcel towards gays who would want to have gay sex with me."
BM the problem is, if you are not volcel towards something, this only leaves 2 options:
  1. You are incel towards them
  2. You are noncel towards them
By saying "I'm not volcel to men" you're basically either saying "I want to fuck them but can't" or "I'm fucking men right now".

Volceldom towards men is the general default stance heterosexual men have. There is nothing sinister in acknowledging that.

Volceldom towards men does not exclude someone from belonging here: the ones who frustrate us are those who are volcel towards females, particularly those who are volcel towards a wide range of them who many of us would be fine with fucking.

I didn't need to.
You've been doing that well enough all on your own when you redefined incel and volcel to include faggots and trannies.
I'm not redefining anything: we did not invent the term incel. Some have attempted to REdefine it, and I dislike that because I think it makes more sense to construct a new BIGGER word for describing a SMALLER population.

"involuntary" and "celibate" are words with already-established definitions we should abide by.

That was funny, though ngl.
Feels like this should be "funny though, ngl"

Intrasexuality celibacy is completely different from intersexuality celibacy.
BM here I feel like we are beginning to reach understanding and similar wavelengths because you have finally made an attempt to indulge my desire to see us attempt to use prefixes.

"intra" and "inter" are ones I have seen with root terms like "personal" (ie interpersonal / intrapersonal)

I'm not clear I understand what you're talking about when you use them here, so could use some help in you attempting to phrase this in a few other ways, but I think I've at least gotten through that I have a fascist OSD aspie need for technical accuracy in exact word structure being used to convey all added parameters in a stated fashion and that I hate implied parameters.

The latter isn't even a valid term.
It's complete nonsense to go around saying something like,
"I'm a straight male who has regular sex with females,
but I haven't had sex with a man, therefore, I'm 'gay celibate'."
People who've had sex at all in the last year (to place an arbitrary time limit short of 'forever a virgin who's never fucked' yet more than that one foid's 6-month nonsense) are not celibate/abstinent/chaste at all, in standard usage.

Obviously "escortcels" on this forum opt to apply a non-standard usage of "sex with someone who chooses to have sex with me for it's own sake because they're attracted to me and not to get my money" which excludes their encounters with escorts. I believe it would also exclude sex with non-consenting women, since they don't choose to have the sex at all.

A term like "gay celibate" bothers me because it's not really clear in construct what's to convey there, like it could just as easily mean "gay and celibate" as it could mean "celibate towards gays" or "celibate towards men"

That is absolute horseshit and makes no sense.
That's not how we use terms like celibacy, heterosexual, homosexual.
But you know this.
The psyop continues...
Yes, it DOES continue.
The frustration I feel is "how we use" the term does not align with "how the word is made".

You'll see I feel this way about other issues too, such as "cuckold".

I recognize the standard usage has gradually evolved to include non-deceptive situations of just getting mogged/dumped or being pathetic and begging your GF to fuck niggers in front of you.

I just REJECT that usage because it's unfaithful etymologically speaking.

That's why I coined a new word to describe the new area because we didn't have a term for that new idea: "bids" derived from "cebidae" monkeys.

The ideal situation is "how we use" a term aligns well with "how word is made".

The gradual abuse of terms to mean things other than what is in their construction is something that infuriates me and which I take a stand against.

You see this with terms like "pedophilia" too. The actual construct has a classic established meaning in DSM with 'prepubescent' parameter and then radfems decide to start using it if you want to fuck nineteen year olds.

It is an arbitrary expansion to absurdium.

I realize that's what you think I'm doing here, but I'm not. I'm not "expanding the term beyond heterosexual men" because the term's original usage Antoine Banier to refer to women who couldn't find eligible husbands, and then by usenet foid "Alana" in 1997. So if you wanted to appeal purely to history, it wouldn't apply to men at all, even though our solitary is far less voluntary than foids.

Fucking hell, more nonsense.
We don't go around calling everybody who doesn't fuck their pet dog an animal volcel.
You technically COULD is my point.
We don't exactly call foids who have ridden 999 dog penises "virgins" or "celibates" just because 100% of the cocks they've ridden are dog cocks and 0% human cocks.

If the evaluation of celibacy vs sex-having is in respect to ALL sex (human or inhuman) then abstaining from either form of it is a form of inceldom.

The only way you can get around that is to say "it's not sex to fuck a non-human animal" which I don't think you'll find much agreement on.

You COULD define a group by something like "the ability to achieve consenting sex from adequately wise informed persons" (TATACSFAWIP) and then via establishing what is "adequate" exclude things which do not fit that parameter:
1) non-human animals (could "consent" but lack capacity for required IQ to consider the consent morally or legally relevant)​
2) human babies because (have not yet achieved capacity for required IQ)​
3) non-consenting women (have required IQ but did not agree)​
4) onaholes and corpses (can't even consent because they're not alive)​

The point I'm making here though is that TATACSFAWIP is a concept not present in the word construction.
I see that as a problem:
we should be altering the word (making it bigger) to reflect the new meaning we want to convey in our community.

You'd have to go even further than TATACSFAWIP to specify foids-only, like maybe add "BAF" to end meaning "Born As Females" (TATACSFAWIPBAF) for example.

This is clunky and cluttery and obviously not what I'm proposing for indefinite use, but rather just to show you what I mean about actually building a term from the ground-up which actually spells out the parameters the term is meant to represent.

As opposed to just coming up with some word like "we are the community of Plankmen" and then being required to explain "Plankmen are men who look through binoculars at women while they shampoo their hair in showers". It sounds absurd because the word's construction doesn't align with the attached meaning.

It bothers me for a number of reasons,
but the top two are that it makes terms meaningless and reduced to absurdity when we can all just define them how we like,
and also that opens the door for faggots and trannies to walk in and find conceptual space here
The problem is to me the term itself is inherently meaningless because of it's broad construction.
Yes, meanings are attached to it, but with no actual logic or authority behind it.
It is an ad-fiat definition and that kind of thing is vulnerable to long-term twisting.

You can see that with phrases like "natural born citizen" which have seen different definitions over the centuries leading to conflicts in modern day over their meaning or intended meaning.

The ideal thing to do is to erase the potential for that by coming up with new terms.

The intend is not to open the door to "all things technically incel", but rather to find a term more specific than incel fitting the parameters of this community, and officially endorse THAT term.

That doesn't necessarily mean I want to rename this forum "UTACSFAWIPBAF.co" (substituting "Unable" for "The Ability" in previously discussed acronym) because you can obviously for posterity keep an old URL or moniker for a long time while using it as a platform to popularize whatever newer-better interm

The psyop continues...
Yes, I'm psy-opping because I believe we should strive for good grammar and etymologically solidarity.

You do realize that all opinion sharing is a psyop, right?

There's reasons why terms like "government psyop" get used: specificity.

My psyop is an individual psyop, not a government psyop, because I am not employed by any government.

There are only two ways you can define celibacy: voluntary and involuntary.
Full stop.
That's fucking idiotic, that's like saying you can only describe people as:
"strong" or "weak"
"tall" or "short"
"rich" or "poor"

Voluntariness is not discrete, choice is not discrete, just like intent is not discrete. Our capacity to evaluate a continuum of enthusiasm necessitates acknowledging a continuum of voluntariness.

1) I strongly want to eat the cake​
2) I slightly want to eat the bread​
3) I'm slightly disinterested in eating the flour​
4) I'm extremely disinterested in eating the feces​

Ergo: any choice I make in regard to those 4 food items (positive or negative) due to my varying level of desire in doing so, inherently must mean the voluntariness of decision comes in matching degrees.

Which means, by inverse law, that INvoluntariness regarding eating them ALSO comes in varying degrees.

I'm not sure how else to spell out my meaning for you bro.

You're the one who wants to convince us that refusing sex with a man makes us volcel.
You've been literally saying exactly that.
That would only be faggy if I intended for us to embrace "volcel" as some kind of criticism.
I acknowledge some use it that way, but I do not embrace it.
"Volcel if you wouldn't" is a JOKE around here, do you not get that?
We're not literally saying "GO FUCK THAT LANDWHALE OR YOU'RE A DIRTY VOLCEL when we post Rosalie Bradford and shit.
As autistic and over-literal as I often am, even I understand this.
Do you not?

I'm telling you that refusing to have sex with a TOAD or MUSSEL is technically volcel:
(that doesn't mean I'm trying to get you to go out and fuck a toad or mussel to death)​

My point is that unless we actually define "sex" more specifically IN THE WORD ITSELF that a word meaning "can't get sex" lacks functional applications.

So long as there is acknowledgement of "that man is having sex with a mare" or "that man is having sex with another man" we define such things as non-celibate, and unless you really want to fuck mares/men but can't acheive it: that portion of your celibacy is a voluntary portion, not an involuntary one.

Where we reach functional applications is by padding out the term INCEL into something more meaningful. Probabably also involving the shortening of various terms in to 2/3 letter portions, or better yet, just making a long phrase with words shortened to 1-letter where the initialism is conveniently an acronym.

SIMP is a good example of this: Simply Idolizing Mediocre Pussy.

That's the type of thing I'm aspiring for here. We could shorten "Involuntarily Celibate" to "IC" but we're going to need more words tacked on to be more specific.

The psyop continues...
The problem here is by saying "psyop" you mean that as an insult of some kind, I guess.
You imply that it has sinister implications.

Nothing about the root terms "psychological operation" actually mean anything negative at all though.

Attempting to influence others' psychology is an unavoidable and indivisible aspect of any conversation 2 people have together.

Additional criteria must be added to make it a LITERAL criticism rather than merely an IMPLIED one.

For example: "Malicious Psychological Operation" could be shortened to "MALPSYOP". This conveying a psyop done with intentions of malice to harm other people, such as a psyop to try and encourage others to commit suicide.

Twisting words and their meanings to allow room for invasive and malicious elements and justify their presense is what upsets me.
Our community has already "twisted" the meaning of incel.
It was first used in 1730s by a priest to describe foids,
then in 1990s by a MtF tranny to describe trannies,
THEN (in mid 2000s/early 2010s) we appropriated it to describe heterosexual men.

Are you unaware of that cloudy history?

It just seems pathetic to me: I want us to do better, construct our own term from the ground up. Demonstrate our superior imagination and cognitive skills.

It's clear as day that you're pushing a gay agenda here.
Not really, I'm just disgusted by the etymological origins of "incel" shortened from "invcel" from a tranny's site, and how the phrase the tranny derived it from was just for women who refused to marry poor/ugly men.

The agenda here is not "incel applies to everyone, let everyone in" or "volcel applies to everyone, let everyone in" to dismantle incel or volcel communities.
The agenda is "these terms are ambiguous, let's brainstorm better terms that better reflect our community and eventually adopt them as our new terms once there is consensus they pass muster".

Don't try and twist words again.
One was in reference to incel,
while the other in reference to volcel.
Um no BM, I'll rehash our exchange:

  1. you "inceldom .. a binary state that's determined by you being selected out of mating due to your shit tier genetics.
  2. me "Selected by whom?"
  3. you "WTF? The females who want to have sex with you, that's who."

I didn't twist anything here: you were defining incel but describe "females" by wrong parameters. Those parameters could be used to describe a volcel's refusal, but for incel purposes you would want to say "females you want to have sex with" or "females who could choose to have sex with you, but do not".

What do you think is invalidated here?
Your arguments.
I make a series of statements in my posts BM.

When I ask "what" I am asking for you to be specific about what particular statements a particular response is addressing.

Not just a generic "the sum of what I am saying invalidates the sum of what you are saying".

There's no need to state THAT, this is a belief I already assess well from you without your explaining it.

The psyop continues...
INDEED.

I'm willing to ask mods to change my username to "The PsyOpper" if it means you'll shut up about it TBH.

If you're expecting me to get defensive about that term, I'm not going to.

It has a similar "so widely usable it's meaningless" issue that makes it impossible to be an insult.

It would actually be an insult to say someone WASN'T psyopping when they post.

As in that case they're just posting as a form of mental masturbation for their own satisfaction and not trying to reach out to connect with the minds of those they're talking to.

So I mean... if you REALLY want to piss me off, you should call my posts an ANTI-psyop.

Although I'm not sure it would insult me because I do occasionally fall into (and even embrace) the attitude of "I'm the only PC, everyone I talk to is an NPC, even people I feel kinship with and who seem less NPCish compared to normies" as I'm sure others here do.

This of course can be a bit insulting/alienating to those who perceive it, leading to hostility. Foids included!
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. Clandops
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
7,929
Online
86d 6h 33m
Inceldom = the inability to have sex.
Volceldom = choosing not to pursue sex which is possible

Examples:
  1. I am incel in respect to Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe because she died in 1847, over 100 years ago. It is impossible for me to fuck her because time travel is impossible.
  2. I am volcel in respect to Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch, because both women are still alive, and I could hypothetically fuck them. I have made no effort to fuck them. That is a voluntary choice. If I had a genuine desire to fuck Watson or Lynch, I could dedicate my life to courting one in hopes of the slim SLIM (negligible) chance they would reciprocate.
(Or, for more feasible chances: to stalking one, breaking into her home and raping her.)
I have voluntarily chosen not to pursue either of those paths, because my interest in fucking either actress (considerable as it is) is not enough to motivate me to go to those lengths. It would be too much effort in either case (even the slightly lower-effort latter one) and also I'm still a bit of a bluepilled moralfag in regard to wanting women's consent and not really wanting to be a rapist which means it would be effort to be at war with myself to do that.​
I would fuck either if she showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, but only because that takes no effort to bring about. )

I have not put effort toward pursuing romantic connections (or rapes) with gays/trannies or Emma Watson.

In both of the first two cases though, that has more to do with my lack of interest in doing so than the lack of feasibility in doing so. IE if a gay/tranny showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, I would refuse.

There are at least three groups of factors which influence the choice to be voluntarily celibate in respect to a potential sex partner:

A) the investment in time/effort to create an opportunity for it​
B) the % chance of that investment resulting in success​
C) the % chance that success results in satisfaction​

To compare:
Watson/Lynch would be (a) high-investment (b) low% success (c) high % satisfaction​
Gays/trannies would be (a) low-investment (b) high % success (c) low % satisfaction​

The differences in motivation toward my voluntary choice to pursue neither of them could be described with certain prefixes modifying the adjective "voluntary" but it doesn't change the fact that my choice to pursue neither of these makes me voluntarily celibate to both groups.

If I were to guess at a term of distinction here, here is an attempt:
"I am regrettably voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of fucking Watson and Lynch"​
"I am happily voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of spreading my asshole and letting another man put his dick into it"​

My struggle here is how I can shorten these ideas into more concise terminology and I'm seeking suggestions from gentlemen such as yourself BM, in attaining that conciseness.


Thinking of "incel" by itself as an adequate term of usefulness is worthy of mockery.

I think we all realize the necessity of additional requirements in defining this culture beyond that of what the word itself implies, but have not risen to that struggle to construct a more accurate word (or phrase, an acronym ideally) to represent the additional parameters we have informally reached consensus on.


What do you mean NOW? All my posts are psy-ops. Everyone's post is a psy-op. The definition of psy-op is so broad that it basically covers all sharing of opinions in conversations and forums?
"convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning"​

How exactly do you even write words without trying to influence other people? Type random things like some monkey?


"with respect to a straight male" is a parameter I am saying we need to add to the root term to specify that parameter. There is nothing in the construction of the word (etymology, fren) to actually indicate this context.

We see some attempt at this in terms like "femcel" which attempt to describe "an incel who is female" except it's incompetent as hell because you can't just fucking chop off "in" like that, "femcel" would be short for "female celibate" and you would need "femincel" to mean "female involuntary celibate". Shortening words to two-letter abbreviation prefixes is one thing but you can't just fucking omit it.

There is also nothing even in "femincel" to indicate female with heterosexual preferences" so the term would encapsulate describe both straight and lesbian women. You'd need ANOTHER prefix to specify the gender preference the woman had.

The same would be true of us. That's one of the problems which exists with https://incels.wiki/w/Malecel

In the construction of this term there is perceived the necessity of specifying the sex/gender of the celibate person via a prefix, but it is inconsistent because they forgoe the need of the "in-" prefix by saying it only applies to involuntary (same problem as "femcel") plus also say it only applies to heterosexual ones.

To apply to male incels the term should be "maleincel" or "manincel" and to convey you'd have to say something like "hetmanincel" or "homanincel".


You're correct: and I do that because extreme cases are easier to understand in respect to the created problem.

An extreme hypothetical case like that we can all agree on defeats the spirit of our community despite it's technical accuracy.

Using a less extreme case, people might start to have mixed opinions on whether it falls within the spirit of the community or not, which is why I avoid it.

But using the extreme fake case helps to establish how there is no authority in shaping boundaries, and thus the eventualy problems which will happen in non-extreme genuine cases of gray borders.


"ask every woman" is basically the extreme/fake example I use to make a point.

The point I'm illustrating here is that there are varying degrees of effort people can put in towards accomplishing certain outcomes, ranging from zero effort to maximal effort.

Maximal effort is not to be expected (for one, they interfere with the potential to make effort towards other sex partners, or other hobbies) but the reason I point out examples of maximal effort is to make the point that we have not actually set out parameters of how much effort someone actually needs to make before we use their failure as proof of "inability".

The other half of that is we have no set minimum effort below which lack of trying counts as "voluntary refusal" or "never even attempted".

This touches on things I've seen in other threads like guys saying "you didn't even try to gym-max" or "you never asked a girl out" or "you don't even try to make eye contact with girls", etc.

There is a merit of truth for that in mid-tier attractiveness, while it's just tilting at windmills for low-tier attractiveness. At a metaphor: whether you're just struggling up a slope (Chad rolls downhill), or reaching a sheer unscaleable wall.

Slope/Wall are of course discrete classifications which do not accurately represent reality: a slight 1-degree slope is essentially flat, while an 89-degree slope is essentially vertical, but not TECHNICALLY.


That is essential. By default, celibacy is celibacy in regard to anyone you could possibly have sex with.


What I mean by this is there are differing degrees of "involuntariness".

There is "I asked the girl out and she rejected me" involuntary
There is "I don't even ask the girl out" involuntary.
In the 1st case, you made a voluntary choice to make an attempt 99% likely to be fruitless, but you still made the attempt.
By putting more voluntary effort into the pursuit, you are thus "more involuntary" when the outcome remains to be celibacy.

This of course is more complex than "effort in", because effort is not the only parameter, so is attractiveness.

1/10 guy A who spends 10 hours trying to woo a girl is thus still "more incel" than 6/10 guy B who spends 100 hours trying to woo a girl.
Even though B put in more voluntary effort, A's chances would've been lower even if he spent 1000 hours on her.
A formula of genes x effort must be taken into account when evaluating a weight for voluntary efforts.


Examples to absurd lengths are used merely to illustrate the context of different choices made being an aspect of voluntary and involuntary outcomes.


You can avoid this by establishing an "incel towards people you're attracted to" classification
(ie allowing for volceldom towards people you don't want to fuck, not a disqualifier)​
I would value that classification but lack imagination for how to describe it.
Do you have some ideas on this BM?

Although I still question how useful this is as a concept, because that does allow for "I'm incel towards gigastacies regardless of being volcel towards stacylites and beckys" membership of various chads.

I believe the most useful thing in respect to our culture and community here is an additional parameter where we have some kind of cutoff.

IE "volceldom towards your looksmatch or above disqualifies you".

But establishing a parameter like that, as important as it is, should be reflected in our actual construction of a term via a prefix chosen to reflect it.

That's where I struggle. It would be easy if I could suggest something but I think first we need to describe this with a short phrase before we contemplate shortening it further into something monosyllabic or disyllabic.


You can call it propaganda/psyop that I am attempting to convey my opinions about the importance of word construction into the minds of others, I will readily admit to that.

What I would point out here:
inceldom as the WORD CONSTRUCTION conveys, is definitely a continuum
You can define a culture/group as categorical, but in doing so, you are defining a subcategory of inceldom which deserves a more potent descriptor with components reflecting this refined meaning.


Ascend with WHOM though? We need to specify "with females" in the word construct if that is our parameter. We also need to specify "and be male" somehow in the word construction.

Also: betabux = escortcel in essence, and I think it's difficult to prove there is actually a case of "no whore in the world would fuck me". There is more like a descending ranking of 100% of whores will fuck me to shrinking % to the point where maybe <0.1% of whores will fuck you.

I don't think there's any absolute guarantee of 0% whores though. It's more like the uglier you are, the more money it would cost. I think there are women on earth who will fuck ANYTHING (even ugliest man in world) for enough money. Or even marry the ugliest betabux man if he were rich enough.

"Trucel" as a construct has no root prefix indicating the maleness or heterosexuality of the subject being spoken of. That's the problem I have with it. There seems to be a sense of "implied prefixes" because "it is just known" that we mean it to be a sub-subject of an already established subject.

I find that limiting because it prevents us from making wider-scale comparisons.

The INTENT of both terms is clear, but the reality is that there is going to be a murky/gray group of men where whether or not they are "true" or "fake" may not be agreed upon by others, or even known to the man in question.

To say otherwise implies that 100% of men who say they are celibate are 100% obvious in their potential capacity to have sex or not have sex.

To accuse someone of LARPing implies that they know this reality themselves.

While it is true that there are men who believe they can have sex and pretend they believe they cannot, there are also men who are simply unsure. That's actually a regression/progression in attitude many men go through:

  1. they start out blue-pilled thinking "I can find love, a girl will appreciate me and fuck me"
  2. and then go red-pilled "I can find sex, a girl will throw me a pity-fuck occasionally when she is depressed about chad being busy fucking a hotter girl that night"
  3. and finally black-pilled "she won't do it unless there is a financial incentive because she finds me repulsive".

Those whose situation are the most grim (1/10) often start out blackpilled (or at least get there much earlier in life) because they are not close enough to the middle to hold onto slim/false hopes for the same amount of time that 2s/3s/4s manage to. The latter are able to remain in denial for longer and be genuinely confused about their chances.

The depressing state of hypergamy is even those who do have chance of sex, the amount of effort/lucky it would take makes them genuinely feel incel, and because of that it is unfair to describe them as "fake".

Where to draw that true/fake line is something we are unlikely to universally agree upon. Yes, we all agree that 8/10 chadlite is a fakecel and we all agree that 1/10 is truecel, but you will not find universal agreement about what middle number to draw the line at, or even how to classify men according to numbers.



The existence of gray middles is a simple truth you appear to be obfuscating to make room for your "discrete incel" idea.


BM the problem is, if you are not volcel towards something, this only leaves 2 options:
  1. You are incel towards them
  2. You are noncel towards them
By saying "I'm not volcel to men" you're basically either saying "I want to fuck them but can't" or "I'm fucking men right now".

Volceldom towards men is the general default stance heterosexual men have. There is nothing sinister in acknowledging that.

Volceldom towards men does not exclude someone from belonging here: the ones who frustrate us are those who are volcel towards females, particularly those who are volcel towards a wide range of them who many of us would be fine with fucking.


I'm not redefining anything: we did not invent the term incel. Some have attempted to REdefine it, and I dislike that because I think it makes more sense to construct a new BIGGER word for describing a SMALLER population.

"involuntary" and "celibate" are words with already-established definitions we should abide by.


Feels like this should be "funny though, ngl"


BM here I feel like we are beginning to reach understanding and similar wavelengths because you have finally made an attempt to indulge my desire to see us attempt to use prefixes.

"intra" and "inter" are ones I have seen with root terms like "personal" (ie interpersonal / intrapersonal)

I'm not clear I understand what you're talking about when you use them here, so could use some help in you attempting to phrase this in a few other ways, but I think I've at least gotten through that I have a fascist OSD aspie need for technical accuracy in exact word structure being used to convey all added parameters in a stated fashion and that I hate implied parameters.


People who've had sex at all in the last year (to place an arbitrary time limit short of 'forever a virgin who's never fucked' yet more than that one foid's 6-month nonsense) are not celibate/abstinent/chaste at all, in standard usage.

Obviously "escortcels" on this forum opt to apply a non-standard usage of "sex with someone who chooses to have sex with me for it's own sake because they're attracted to me and not to get my money" which excludes their encounters with escorts. I believe it would also exclude sex with non-consenting women, since they don't choose to have the sex at all.

A term like "gay celibate" bothers me because it's not really clear in construct what's to convey there, like it could just as easily mean "gay and celibate" as it could mean "celibate towards gays" or "celibate towards men"


Yes, it DOES continue.
The frustration I feel is "how we use" the term does not align with "how the word is made".

You'll see I feel this way about other issues too, such as "cuckold".

I recognize the standard usage has gradually evolved to include non-deceptive situations of just getting mogged/dumped or being pathetic and begging your GF to fuck niggers in front of you.

I just REJECT that usage because it's unfaithful etymologically speaking.

That's why I coined a new word to describe the new area because we didn't have a term for that new idea: "bids" derived from "cebidae" monkeys.

The ideal situation is "how we use" a term aligns well with "how word is made".

The gradual abuse of terms to mean things other than what is in their construction is something that infuriates me and which I take a stand against.

You see this with terms like "pedophilia" too. The actual construct has a classic established meaning in DSM with 'prepubescent' parameter and then radfems decide to start using it if you want to fuck nineteen year olds.

It is an arbitrary expansion to absurdium.

I realize that's what you think I'm doing here, but I'm not. I'm not "expanding the term beyond heterosexual men" because the term's original usage Antoine Banier to refer to women who couldn't find eligible husbands, and then by usenet foid "Alana" in 1997. So if you wanted to appeal purely to history, it wouldn't apply to men at all, even though our solitary is far less voluntary than foids.


You technically COULD is my point.
We don't exactly call foids who have ridden 999 dog penises "virgins" or "celibates" just because 100% of the cocks they've ridden are dog cocks and 0% human cocks.

If the evaluation of celibacy vs sex-having is in respect to ALL sex (human or inhuman) then abstaining from either form of it is a form of inceldom.

The only way you can get around that is to say "it's not sex to fuck a non-human animal" which I don't think you'll find much agreement on.

You COULD define a group by something like "the ability to achieve consenting sex from adequately wise informed persons" (TATACSFAWIP) and then via establishing what is "adequate" exclude things which do not fit that parameter:
1) non-human animals (could "consent" but lack capacity for required IQ to consider the consent morally or legally relevant)​
2) human babies because (have not yet achieved capacity for required IQ)​
3) non-consenting women (have required IQ but did not agree)​
4) onaholes and corpses (can't even consent because they're not alive)​

The point I'm making here though is that TATACSFAWIP is a concept not present in the word construction.
I see that as a problem:
we should be altering the word (making it bigger) to reflect the new meaning we want to convey in our community.

You'd have to go even further than TATACSFAWIP to specify foids-only, like maybe add "BAF" to end meaning "Born As Females" (TATACSFAWIPBAF) for example.

This is clunky and cluttery and obviously not what I'm proposing for indefinite use, but rather just to show you what I mean about actually building a term from the ground-up which actually spells out the parameters the term is meant to represent.

As opposed to just coming up with some word like "we are the community of Plankmen" and then being required to explain "Plankmen are men who look through binoculars at women while they shampoo their hair in showers". It sounds absurd because the word's construction doesn't align with the attached meaning.


The problem is to me the term itself is inherently meaningless because of it's broad construction.
Yes, meanings are attached to it, but with no actual logic or authority behind it.
It is an ad-fiat definition and that kind of thing is vulnerable to long-term twisting.

You can see that with phrases like "natural born citizen" which have seen different definitions over the centuries leading to conflicts in modern day over their meaning or intended meaning.

The ideal thing to do is to erase the potential for that by coming up with new terms.

The intend is not to open the door to "all things technically incel", but rather to find a term more specific than incel fitting the parameters of this community, and officially endorse THAT term.

That doesn't necessarily mean I want to rename this forum "UTACSFAWIPBAF.co" (substituting "Unable" for "The Ability" in previously discussed acronym) because you can obviously for posterity keep an old URL or moniker for a long time while using it as a platform to popularize whatever newer-better interm


Yes, I'm psy-opping because I believe we should strive for good grammar and etymologically solidarity.

You do realize that all opinion sharing is a psyop, right?

There's reasons why terms like "government psyop" get used: specificity.

My psyop is an individual psyop, not a government psyop, because I am not employed by any government.


That's fucking idiotic, that's like saying you can only describe people as:
"strong" or "weak"
"tall" or "short"
"rich" or "poor"

Voluntariness is not discrete, choice is not discrete, just like intent is not discrete. Our capacity to evaluate a continuum of enthusiasm necessitates acknowledging a continuum of voluntariness.

1) I strongly want to eat the cake​
2) I slightly want to eat the bread​
3) I'm slightly disinterested in eating the flour​
4) I'm extremely disinterested in eating the feces​

Ergo: any choice I make in regard to those 4 food items (positive or negative) due to my varying level of desire in doing so, inherently must mean the voluntariness of decision comes in matching degrees.

Which means, by inverse law, that INvoluntariness regarding eating them ALSO comes in varying degrees.

I'm not sure how else to spell out my meaning for you bro.


That would only be faggy if I intended for us to embrace "volcel" as some kind of criticism.
I acknowledge some use it that way, but I do not embrace it.
"Volcel if you wouldn't" is a JOKE around here, do you not get that?
We're not literally saying "GO FUCK THAT LANDWHALE OR YOU'RE A DIRTY VOLCEL when we post Rosalie Bradford and shit.
As autistic and over-literal as I often am, even I understand this.
Do you not?

I'm telling you that refusing to have sex with a TOAD or MUSSEL is technically volcel:
(that doesn't mean I'm trying to get you to go out and fuck a toad or mussel to death)​

My point is that unless we actually define "sex" more specifically IN THE WORD ITSELF that a word meaning "can't get sex" lacks functional applications.

So long as there is acknowledgement of "that man is having sex with a mare" or "that man is having sex with another man" we define such things as non-celibate, and unless you really want to fuck mares/men but can't acheive it: that portion of your celibacy is a voluntary portion, not an involuntary one.

Where we reach functional applications is by padding out the term INCEL into something more meaningful. Probabably also involving the shortening of various terms in to 2/3 letter portions, or better yet, just making a long phrase with words shortened to 1-letter where the initialism is conveniently an acronym.

SIMP is a good example of this: Simply Idolizing Mediocre Pussy.

That's the type of thing I'm aspiring for here. We could shorten "Involuntarily Celibate" to "IC" but we're going to need more words tacked on to be more specific.


The problem here is by saying "psyop" you mean that as an insult of some kind, I guess.
You imply that it has sinister implications.

Nothing about the root terms "psychological operation" actually mean anything negative at all though.

Attempting to influence others' psychology is an unavoidable and indivisible aspect of any conversation 2 people have together.

Additional criteria must be added to make it a LITERAL criticism rather than merely an IMPLIED one.

For example: "Malicious Psychological Operation" could be shortened to "MALPSYOP". This conveying a psyop done with intentions of malice to harm other people, such as a psyop to try and encourage others to commit suicide.


Our community has already "twisted" the meaning of incel.
It was first used in 1730s by a priest to describe foids,
then in 1990s by a MtF tranny to describe trannies,
THEN (in mid 2000s/early 2010s) we appropriated it to describe heterosexual men.

Are you unaware of that cloudy history?

It just seems pathetic to me: I want us to do better, construct our own term from the ground up. Demonstrate our superior imagination and cognitive skills.


Not really, I'm just disgusted by the etymological origins of "incel" shortened from "invcel" from a tranny's site, and how the phrase the tranny derived it from was just for women who refused to marry poor/ugly men.

The agenda here is not "incel applies to everyone, let everyone in" or "volcel applies to everyone, let everyone in" to dismantle incel or volcel communities.
The agenda is "these terms are ambiguous, let's brainstorm better terms that better reflect our community and eventually adopt them as our new terms once there is consensus they pass muster".


Um no BM, I'll rehash our exchange:

  1. you "inceldom .. a binary state that's determined by you being selected out of mating due to your shit tier genetics.
  2. me "Selected by whom?"
  3. you "WTF? The females who want to have sex with you, that's who."

I didn't twist anything here: you were defining incel but describe "females" by wrong parameters. Those parameters could be used to describe a volcel's refusal, but for incel purposes you would want to say "females you want to have sex with" or "females who could choose to have sex with you, but do not".


I make a series of statements in my posts BM.

When I ask "what" I am asking for you to be specific about what particular statements a particular response is addressing.

Not just a generic "the sum of what I am saying invalidates the sum of what you are saying".

There's no need to state THAT, this is a belief I already assess well from you without your explaining it.


INDEED.

I'm willing to ask mods to change my username to "The PsyOpper" if it means you'll shut up about it TBH.

If you're expecting me to get defensive about that term, I'm not going to.

It has a similar "so widely usable it's meaningless" issue that makes it impossible to be an insult.

It would actually be an insult to say someone WASN'T psyopping when they post.

As in that case they're just posting as a form of mental masturbation for their own satisfaction and not trying to reach out to connect with the minds of those they're talking to.

So I mean... if you REALLY want to piss me off, you should call my posts an ANTI-psyop.

Although I'm not sure it would insult me because I do occasionally fall into (and even embrace) the attitude of "I'm the only PC, everyone I talk to is an NPC, even people I feel kinship with and who seem less NPCish compared to normies" as I'm sure others here do.

This of course can be a bit insulting/alienating to those who perceive it, leading to hostility. Foids included!
You've already said and admitted that not fucking gays and trannies when they want to fuck you makes you volcel, and now you're taking the mental gymnastics to justify that kind of statement into hyperdrive. You even said not fucking an animal makes you volcel.

I'm not wasting my time with any of this.

@GoffSystemQB @mental_out @knajjd Anybody saying things to the effect of, "volcel, if you wouldn't let a man bend you over and fuck you," is acceptable now? Because that's basically what was said, except in fancier words. If those rules changed and I wasn't paying attention, remind me.
 
Last edited:
shii410

shii410

God's lonely man
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Posts
6,396
Online
86d 7h 26m
Inceldom = the inability to have sex.
Volceldom = choosing not to pursue sex which is possible

Examples:
  1. I am incel in respect to Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe because she died in 1847, over 100 years ago. It is impossible for me to fuck her because time travel is impossible.
  2. I am volcel in respect to Emma Watson and Evanna Lynch, because both women are still alive, and I could hypothetically fuck them. I have made no effort to fuck them. That is a voluntary choice. If I had a genuine desire to fuck Watson or Lynch, I could dedicate my life to courting one in hopes of the slim SLIM (negligible) chance they would reciprocate.
(Or, for more feasible chances: to stalking one, breaking into her home and raping her.)
I have voluntarily chosen not to pursue either of those paths, because my interest in fucking either actress (considerable as it is) is not enough to motivate me to go to those lengths. It would be too much effort in either case (even the slightly lower-effort latter one) and also I'm still a bit of a bluepilled moralfag in regard to wanting women's consent and not really wanting to be a rapist which means it would be effort to be at war with myself to do that.​
I would fuck either if she showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, but only because that takes no effort to bring about. )

I have not put effort toward pursuing romantic connections (or rapes) with gays/trannies or Emma Watson.

In both of the first two cases though, that has more to do with my lack of interest in doing so than the lack of feasibility in doing so. IE if a gay/tranny showed up at my bedroom door and offered to ride my cock on the spot, I would refuse.

There are at least three groups of factors which influence the choice to be voluntarily celibate in respect to a potential sex partner:

A) the investment in time/effort to create an opportunity for it​
B) the % chance of that investment resulting in success​
C) the % chance that success results in satisfaction​

To compare:
Watson/Lynch would be (a) high-investment (b) low% success (c) high % satisfaction​
Gays/trannies would be (a) low-investment (b) high % success (c) low % satisfaction​

The differences in motivation toward my voluntary choice to pursue neither of them could be described with certain prefixes modifying the adjective "voluntary" but it doesn't change the fact that my choice to pursue neither of these makes me voluntarily celibate to both groups.

If I were to guess at a term of distinction here, here is an attempt:
"I am regrettably voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of fucking Watson and Lynch"​
"I am happily voluntarily celibate regarding the sexual opportunity of spreading my asshole and letting another man put his dick into it"​

My struggle here is how I can shorten these ideas into more concise terminology and I'm seeking suggestions from gentlemen such as yourself BM, in attaining that conciseness.


Thinking of "incel" by itself as an adequate term of usefulness is worthy of mockery.

I think we all realize the necessity of additional requirements in defining this culture beyond that of what the word itself implies, but have not risen to that struggle to construct a more accurate word (or phrase, an acronym ideally) to represent the additional parameters we have informally reached consensus on.


What do you mean NOW? All my posts are psy-ops. Everyone's post is a psy-op. The definition of psy-op is so broad that it basically covers all sharing of opinions in conversations and forums?
"convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning"​

How exactly do you even write words without trying to influence other people? Type random things like some monkey?


"with respect to a straight male" is a parameter I am saying we need to add to the root term to specify that parameter. There is nothing in the construction of the word (etymology, fren) to actually indicate this context.

We see some attempt at this in terms like "femcel" which attempt to describe "an incel who is female" except it's incompetent as hell because you can't just fucking chop off "in" like that, "femcel" would be short for "female celibate" and you would need "femincel" to mean "female involuntary celibate". Shortening words to two-letter abbreviation prefixes is one thing but you can't just fucking omit it.

There is also nothing even in "femincel" to indicate female with heterosexual preferences" so the term would encapsulate describe both straight and lesbian women. You'd need ANOTHER prefix to specify the gender preference the woman had.

The same would be true of us. That's one of the problems which exists with https://incels.wiki/w/Malecel

In the construction of this term there is perceived the necessity of specifying the sex/gender of the celibate person via a prefix, but it is inconsistent because they forgoe the need of the "in-" prefix by saying it only applies to involuntary (same problem as "femcel") plus also say it only applies to heterosexual ones.

To apply to male incels the term should be "maleincel" or "manincel" and to convey you'd have to say something like "hetmanincel" or "homanincel".


You're correct: and I do that because extreme cases are easier to understand in respect to the created problem.

An extreme hypothetical case like that we can all agree on defeats the spirit of our community despite it's technical accuracy.

Using a less extreme case, people might start to have mixed opinions on whether it falls within the spirit of the community or not, which is why I avoid it.

But using the extreme fake case helps to establish how there is no authority in shaping boundaries, and thus the eventualy problems which will happen in non-extreme genuine cases of gray borders.


"ask every woman" is basically the extreme/fake example I use to make a point.

The point I'm illustrating here is that there are varying degrees of effort people can put in towards accomplishing certain outcomes, ranging from zero effort to maximal effort.

Maximal effort is not to be expected (for one, they interfere with the potential to make effort towards other sex partners, or other hobbies) but the reason I point out examples of maximal effort is to make the point that we have not actually set out parameters of how much effort someone actually needs to make before we use their failure as proof of "inability".

The other half of that is we have no set minimum effort below which lack of trying counts as "voluntary refusal" or "never even attempted".

This touches on things I've seen in other threads like guys saying "you didn't even try to gym-max" or "you never asked a girl out" or "you don't even try to make eye contact with girls", etc.

There is a merit of truth for that in mid-tier attractiveness, while it's just tilting at windmills for low-tier attractiveness. At a metaphor: whether you're just struggling up a slope (Chad rolls downhill), or reaching a sheer unscaleable wall.

Slope/Wall are of course discrete classifications which do not accurately represent reality: a slight 1-degree slope is essentially flat, while an 89-degree slope is essentially vertical, but not TECHNICALLY.


That is essential. By default, celibacy is celibacy in regard to anyone you could possibly have sex with.


What I mean by this is there are differing degrees of "involuntariness".

There is "I asked the girl out and she rejected me" involuntary
There is "I don't even ask the girl out" involuntary.
In the 1st case, you made a voluntary choice to make an attempt 99% likely to be fruitless, but you still made the attempt.
By putting more voluntary effort into the pursuit, you are thus "more involuntary" when the outcome remains to be celibacy.

This of course is more complex than "effort in", because effort is not the only parameter, so is attractiveness.

1/10 guy A who spends 10 hours trying to woo a girl is thus still "more incel" than 6/10 guy B who spends 100 hours trying to woo a girl.
Even though B put in more voluntary effort, A's chances would've been lower even if he spent 1000 hours on her.
A formula of genes x effort must be taken into account when evaluating a weight for voluntary efforts.


Examples to absurd lengths are used merely to illustrate the context of different choices made being an aspect of voluntary and involuntary outcomes.


You can avoid this by establishing an "incel towards people you're attracted to" classification
(ie allowing for volceldom towards people you don't want to fuck, not a disqualifier)​
I would value that classification but lack imagination for how to describe it.
Do you have some ideas on this BM?

Although I still question how useful this is as a concept, because that does allow for "I'm incel towards gigastacies regardless of being volcel towards stacylites and beckys" membership of various chads.

I believe the most useful thing in respect to our culture and community here is an additional parameter where we have some kind of cutoff.

IE "volceldom towards your looksmatch or above disqualifies you".

But establishing a parameter like that, as important as it is, should be reflected in our actual construction of a term via a prefix chosen to reflect it.

That's where I struggle. It would be easy if I could suggest something but I think first we need to describe this with a short phrase before we contemplate shortening it further into something monosyllabic or disyllabic.


You can call it propaganda/psyop that I am attempting to convey my opinions about the importance of word construction into the minds of others, I will readily admit to that.

What I would point out here:
inceldom as the WORD CONSTRUCTION conveys, is definitely a continuum
You can define a culture/group as categorical, but in doing so, you are defining a subcategory of inceldom which deserves a more potent descriptor with components reflecting this refined meaning.


Ascend with WHOM though? We need to specify "with females" in the word construct if that is our parameter. We also need to specify "and be male" somehow in the word construction.

Also: betabux = escortcel in essence, and I think it's difficult to prove there is actually a case of "no whore in the world would fuck me". There is more like a descending ranking of 100% of whores will fuck me to shrinking % to the point where maybe <0.1% of whores will fuck you.

I don't think there's any absolute guarantee of 0% whores though. It's more like the uglier you are, the more money it would cost. I think there are women on earth who will fuck ANYTHING (even ugliest man in world) for enough money. Or even marry the ugliest betabux man if he were rich enough.

"Trucel" as a construct has no root prefix indicating the maleness or heterosexuality of the subject being spoken of. That's the problem I have with it. There seems to be a sense of "implied prefixes" because "it is just known" that we mean it to be a sub-subject of an already established subject.

I find that limiting because it prevents us from making wider-scale comparisons.

The INTENT of both terms is clear, but the reality is that there is going to be a murky/gray group of men where whether or not they are "true" or "fake" may not be agreed upon by others, or even known to the man in question.

To say otherwise implies that 100% of men who say they are celibate are 100% obvious in their potential capacity to have sex or not have sex.

To accuse someone of LARPing implies that they know this reality themselves.

While it is true that there are men who believe they can have sex and pretend they believe they cannot, there are also men who are simply unsure. That's actually a regression/progression in attitude many men go through:

  1. they start out blue-pilled thinking "I can find love, a girl will appreciate me and fuck me"
  2. and then go red-pilled "I can find sex, a girl will throw me a pity-fuck occasionally when she is depressed about chad being busy fucking a hotter girl that night"
  3. and finally black-pilled "she won't do it unless there is a financial incentive because she finds me repulsive".

Those whose situation are the most grim (1/10) often start out blackpilled (or at least get there much earlier in life) because they are not close enough to the middle to hold onto slim/false hopes for the same amount of time that 2s/3s/4s manage to. The latter are able to remain in denial for longer and be genuinely confused about their chances.

The depressing state of hypergamy is even those who do have chance of sex, the amount of effort/lucky it would take makes them genuinely feel incel, and because of that it is unfair to describe them as "fake".

Where to draw that true/fake line is something we are unlikely to universally agree upon. Yes, we all agree that 8/10 chadlite is a fakecel and we all agree that 1/10 is truecel, but you will not find universal agreement about what middle number to draw the line at, or even how to classify men according to numbers.



The existence of gray middles is a simple truth you appear to be obfuscating to make room for your "discrete incel" idea.


BM the problem is, if you are not volcel towards something, this only leaves 2 options:
  1. You are incel towards them
  2. You are noncel towards them
By saying "I'm not volcel to men" you're basically either saying "I want to fuck them but can't" or "I'm fucking men right now".

Volceldom towards men is the general default stance heterosexual men have. There is nothing sinister in acknowledging that.

Volceldom towards men does not exclude someone from belonging here: the ones who frustrate us are those who are volcel towards females, particularly those who are volcel towards a wide range of them who many of us would be fine with fucking.


I'm not redefining anything: we did not invent the term incel. Some have attempted to REdefine it, and I dislike that because I think it makes more sense to construct a new BIGGER word for describing a SMALLER population.

"involuntary" and "celibate" are words with already-established definitions we should abide by.


Feels like this should be "funny though, ngl"


BM here I feel like we are beginning to reach understanding and similar wavelengths because you have finally made an attempt to indulge my desire to see us attempt to use prefixes.

"intra" and "inter" are ones I have seen with root terms like "personal" (ie interpersonal / intrapersonal)

I'm not clear I understand what you're talking about when you use them here, so could use some help in you attempting to phrase this in a few other ways, but I think I've at least gotten through that I have a fascist OSD aspie need for technical accuracy in exact word structure being used to convey all added parameters in a stated fashion and that I hate implied parameters.


People who've had sex at all in the last year (to place an arbitrary time limit short of 'forever a virgin who's never fucked' yet more than that one foid's 6-month nonsense) are not celibate/abstinent/chaste at all, in standard usage.

Obviously "escortcels" on this forum opt to apply a non-standard usage of "sex with someone who chooses to have sex with me for it's own sake because they're attracted to me and not to get my money" which excludes their encounters with escorts. I believe it would also exclude sex with non-consenting women, since they don't choose to have the sex at all.

A term like "gay celibate" bothers me because it's not really clear in construct what's to convey there, like it could just as easily mean "gay and celibate" as it could mean "celibate towards gays" or "celibate towards men"


Yes, it DOES continue.
The frustration I feel is "how we use" the term does not align with "how the word is made".

You'll see I feel this way about other issues too, such as "cuckold".

I recognize the standard usage has gradually evolved to include non-deceptive situations of just getting mogged/dumped or being pathetic and begging your GF to fuck niggers in front of you.

I just REJECT that usage because it's unfaithful etymologically speaking.

That's why I coined a new word to describe the new area because we didn't have a term for that new idea: "bids" derived from "cebidae" monkeys.

The ideal situation is "how we use" a term aligns well with "how word is made".

The gradual abuse of terms to mean things other than what is in their construction is something that infuriates me and which I take a stand against.

You see this with terms like "pedophilia" too. The actual construct has a classic established meaning in DSM with 'prepubescent' parameter and then radfems decide to start using it if you want to fuck nineteen year olds.

It is an arbitrary expansion to absurdium.

I realize that's what you think I'm doing here, but I'm not. I'm not "expanding the term beyond heterosexual men" because the term's original usage Antoine Banier to refer to women who couldn't find eligible husbands, and then by usenet foid "Alana" in 1997. So if you wanted to appeal purely to history, it wouldn't apply to men at all, even though our solitary is far less voluntary than foids.


You technically COULD is my point.
We don't exactly call foids who have ridden 999 dog penises "virgins" or "celibates" just because 100% of the cocks they've ridden are dog cocks and 0% human cocks.

If the evaluation of celibacy vs sex-having is in respect to ALL sex (human or inhuman) then abstaining from either form of it is a form of inceldom.

The only way you can get around that is to say "it's not sex to fuck a non-human animal" which I don't think you'll find much agreement on.

You COULD define a group by something like "the ability to achieve consenting sex from adequately wise informed persons" (TATACSFAWIP) and then via establishing what is "adequate" exclude things which do not fit that parameter:
1) non-human animals (could "consent" but lack capacity for required IQ to consider the consent morally or legally relevant)​
2) human babies because (have not yet achieved capacity for required IQ)​
3) non-consenting women (have required IQ but did not agree)​
4) onaholes and corpses (can't even consent because they're not alive)​

The point I'm making here though is that TATACSFAWIP is a concept not present in the word construction.
I see that as a problem:
we should be altering the word (making it bigger) to reflect the new meaning we want to convey in our community.

You'd have to go even further than TATACSFAWIP to specify foids-only, like maybe add "BAF" to end meaning "Born As Females" (TATACSFAWIPBAF) for example.

This is clunky and cluttery and obviously not what I'm proposing for indefinite use, but rather just to show you what I mean about actually building a term from the ground-up which actually spells out the parameters the term is meant to represent.

As opposed to just coming up with some word like "we are the community of Plankmen" and then being required to explain "Plankmen are men who look through binoculars at women while they shampoo their hair in showers". It sounds absurd because the word's construction doesn't align with the attached meaning.


The problem is to me the term itself is inherently meaningless because of it's broad construction.
Yes, meanings are attached to it, but with no actual logic or authority behind it.
It is an ad-fiat definition and that kind of thing is vulnerable to long-term twisting.

You can see that with phrases like "natural born citizen" which have seen different definitions over the centuries leading to conflicts in modern day over their meaning or intended meaning.

The ideal thing to do is to erase the potential for that by coming up with new terms.

The intend is not to open the door to "all things technically incel", but rather to find a term more specific than incel fitting the parameters of this community, and officially endorse THAT term.

That doesn't necessarily mean I want to rename this forum "UTACSFAWIPBAF.co" (substituting "Unable" for "The Ability" in previously discussed acronym) because you can obviously for posterity keep an old URL or moniker for a long time while using it as a platform to popularize whatever newer-better interm


Yes, I'm psy-opping because I believe we should strive for good grammar and etymologically solidarity.

You do realize that all opinion sharing is a psyop, right?

There's reasons why terms like "government psyop" get used: specificity.

My psyop is an individual psyop, not a government psyop, because I am not employed by any government.


That's fucking idiotic, that's like saying you can only describe people as:
"strong" or "weak"
"tall" or "short"
"rich" or "poor"

Voluntariness is not discrete, choice is not discrete, just like intent is not discrete. Our capacity to evaluate a continuum of enthusiasm necessitates acknowledging a continuum of voluntariness.

1) I strongly want to eat the cake​
2) I slightly want to eat the bread​
3) I'm slightly disinterested in eating the flour​
4) I'm extremely disinterested in eating the feces​

Ergo: any choice I make in regard to those 4 food items (positive or negative) due to my varying level of desire in doing so, inherently must mean the voluntariness of decision comes in matching degrees.

Which means, by inverse law, that INvoluntariness regarding eating them ALSO comes in varying degrees.

I'm not sure how else to spell out my meaning for you bro.


That would only be faggy if I intended for us to embrace "volcel" as some kind of criticism.
I acknowledge some use it that way, but I do not embrace it.
"Volcel if you wouldn't" is a JOKE around here, do you not get that?
We're not literally saying "GO FUCK THAT LANDWHALE OR YOU'RE A DIRTY VOLCEL when we post Rosalie Bradford and shit.
As autistic and over-literal as I often am, even I understand this.
Do you not?

I'm telling you that refusing to have sex with a TOAD or MUSSEL is technically volcel:
(that doesn't mean I'm trying to get you to go out and fuck a toad or mussel to death)​

My point is that unless we actually define "sex" more specifically IN THE WORD ITSELF that a word meaning "can't get sex" lacks functional applications.

So long as there is acknowledgement of "that man is having sex with a mare" or "that man is having sex with another man" we define such things as non-celibate, and unless you really want to fuck mares/men but can't acheive it: that portion of your celibacy is a voluntary portion, not an involuntary one.

Where we reach functional applications is by padding out the term INCEL into something more meaningful. Probabably also involving the shortening of various terms in to 2/3 letter portions, or better yet, just making a long phrase with words shortened to 1-letter where the initialism is conveniently an acronym.

SIMP is a good example of this: Simply Idolizing Mediocre Pussy.

That's the type of thing I'm aspiring for here. We could shorten "Involuntarily Celibate" to "IC" but we're going to need more words tacked on to be more specific.


The problem here is by saying "psyop" you mean that as an insult of some kind, I guess.
You imply that it has sinister implications.

Nothing about the root terms "psychological operation" actually mean anything negative at all though.

Attempting to influence others' psychology is an unavoidable and indivisible aspect of any conversation 2 people have together.

Additional criteria must be added to make it a LITERAL criticism rather than merely an IMPLIED one.

For example: "Malicious Psychological Operation" could be shortened to "MALPSYOP". This conveying a psyop done with intentions of malice to harm other people, such as a psyop to try and encourage others to commit suicide.


Our community has already "twisted" the meaning of incel.
It was first used in 1730s by a priest to describe foids,
then in 1990s by a MtF tranny to describe trannies,
THEN (in mid 2000s/early 2010s) we appropriated it to describe heterosexual men.

Are you unaware of that cloudy history?

It just seems pathetic to me: I want us to do better, construct our own term from the ground up. Demonstrate our superior imagination and cognitive skills.


Not really, I'm just disgusted by the etymological origins of "incel" shortened from "invcel" from a tranny's site, and how the phrase the tranny derived it from was just for women who refused to marry poor/ugly men.

The agenda here is not "incel applies to everyone, let everyone in" or "volcel applies to everyone, let everyone in" to dismantle incel or volcel communities.
The agenda is "these terms are ambiguous, let's brainstorm better terms that better reflect our community and eventually adopt them as our new terms once there is consensus they pass muster".


Um no BM, I'll rehash our exchange:

  1. you "inceldom .. a binary state that's determined by you being selected out of mating due to your shit tier genetics.
  2. me "Selected by whom?"
  3. you "WTF? The females who want to have sex with you, that's who."

I didn't twist anything here: you were defining incel but describe "females" by wrong parameters. Those parameters could be used to describe a volcel's refusal, but for incel purposes you would want to say "females you want to have sex with" or "females who could choose to have sex with you, but do not".


I make a series of statements in my posts BM.

When I ask "what" I am asking for you to be specific about what particular statements a particular response is addressing.

Not just a generic "the sum of what I am saying invalidates the sum of what you are saying".

There's no need to state THAT, this is a belief I already assess well from you without your explaining it.


INDEED.

I'm willing to ask mods to change my username to "The PsyOpper" if it means you'll shut up about it TBH.

If you're expecting me to get defensive about that term, I'm not going to.

It has a similar "so widely usable it's meaningless" issue that makes it impossible to be an insult.

It would actually be an insult to say someone WASN'T psyopping when they post.

As in that case they're just posting as a form of mental masturbation for their own satisfaction and not trying to reach out to connect with the minds of those they're talking to.

So I mean... if you REALLY want to piss me off, you should call my posts an ANTI-psyop.

Although I'm not sure it would insult me because I do occasionally fall into (and even embrace) the attitude of "I'm the only PC, everyone I talk to is an NPC, even people I feel kinship with and who seem less NPCish compared to normies" as I'm sure others here do.

This of course can be a bit insulting/alienating to those who perceive it, leading to hostility. Foids included!
nigga I wrote a literal award winning essay that had fewer words than this
You've already said and admitted that not fucking gays and trannies when they want to fuck you makes you volcel, and now you're taking the mental gymnastics to justify that kind of statement into hyperdrive. You even said not fucking an animal makes you volcel.

I'm not wasting my time with any of this.

@GoffSystemQB @mental_out @knajjd Anybody saying things to the effect of, "volcel, if you wouldn't let a man bend you over and fuck you," is acceptable now? Because that's basically what was said, except in fancier words. If those rules changed and I wasn't paying attention, remind me.
yeah tbh you should have just said this sooner. if a heterosexual man can't have heterosexual sex then he is involuntarily celibate. "oh but you can technically fuck animals and other men" no man. just no. it shouldn't even have to be explained why that's ridiculous
 
Last edited:
grondilu

grondilu

Overlord
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Posts
5,094
Online
105d 11h 33m
Such a amusing post. I'm glad this thread is still alive.

Funny thing is : such a post would be possible if incels who whine "I just want to be loved, to hold hands and cuddle" and cheesy shit like that were right. Chad could literally be here and whine about his lack of romantic love despite abundance of sex.

Sex trumps romantic love. Or at the very least, lack of sex completely messes up views on romantic love and blows it out of proportion. It's an illusion, a fantasy the mind builds up and cultivates until it experiences what it truly wants. Only then will it recognize it. "It's like coming home", as I've once heard say.
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. Clandops
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
7,929
Online
86d 6h 33m
Such a amusing post. I'm glad this thread is still alive.

Funny thing is : such a post would be possible if incels who whine "I just want to be loved, to hold hands and cuddle" and cheesy shit like that were right. Chad could literally be here and whine about his lack of romantic love despite abundance of sex.
This thread should serve as an example of the level of absurdities that can be reached when you don't have clear definitions (maybe we all need to do that and come to some rational consensus). The character in the OP is a rich playboy chad who has girls willingly wanting to come over to his house for a fuck fest, but because he can't have one girl he's somehow incel. Terrachad might not be able to have some royal family princess, so if that's his oneitis, he's now incel.

Sex trumps romantic love. Or at the very least, lack of sex completely messes up views on romantic love and blows it out of proportion. It's an illusion, a fantasy the mind builds up and cultivates until it experiences what it truly wants. Only then will it recognize it. "It's like coming home", as I've once heard say.
Attraction, which is the desire to have sex, precedes (and is a necessary component of) romantic love. By extension, you can simplify it to saying sex becomes before love. Even classic courtship presupposes sex, though they don't fuck until after they're married. Pure romantic love as some ideal doesn't exist outside of sex, since romance itself presupposes sex.

This is why I laugh whenever I see shit, "I don't even want to have sex with her, I just want to kiss her and hold her and be with her." COPE, NIGGA. YOU WANNA BONE THAT BITCH RAW.
 

Similar threads