Inceldom = the inability to have sex.
Volceldom = choosing not to pursue sex which is possible
Examples:
- 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.
- 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:
- they start out blue-pilled thinking "I can find love, a girl will appreciate me and fuck me"
- 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"
- 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:
- You are incel towards them
- 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:
- you "inceldom .. a binary state that's determined by you being selected out of mating due to your shit tier genetics.
- me "Selected by whom?"
- 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!