# Celibacy



## Punji (Oct 22, 2020)

The furry fandom has an infamous reputation of being rather promiscuous and that's all I'll say on that.   

I'm curious as to how true this may be for our demographic, though obviously this is just for fun so I won't go into too much detail or subcategorize at all. Maybe someday we could poll a larger percentage of the fandom and class by age, sex & gender identity, orientation, and partner preferences/requirements, but for now we're not writing any papers on this. 

For the purposes of this poll, I'll define the possible answers as such:

Not celibate -- Does not refrain from intercourse with any given partner of one's choosing. May or may not actively pursue intercourse, but must occur at least semi-regularity *or* must be achievable to some degree when desired.

Conditionally celibate -- Refrains from intercourse under most circumstances, but would or will engage with a partner under specific conditions. (I.E. only when trying for a child, only on particular occasions, only with a specific person or persons, etc.)

Voluntarily celibate -- Refrains from intercourse entirely by choice, regardless of how achievable it may be. Must be physically, emotionally, and mentally capable of intercourse, though actual desire is not required.

Involuntarily celibate -- Refrains from intercourse entirely against one's wishes. This may be due to being unable to find a suitable partner, being physically, emotionally, or mentally unable of intercourse, or other reason preventing intercourse. (Religious beliefs are considered voluntary.) One must desire intercourse without successfully engaging it under desired conditions.

Personally I think of myself as voluntarily celibate. No one's ever approached me with the idea (as far as I can tell) and I've never really approached anyone else with the idea either. There are a few select instances or individuals I could be persuaded with, but at this time none of them are very realistic or viable, and maybe even then.  At the risk of arrogance, I reckon I could find _some_ partner if I particularly sought one out, but I think I prefer to just remain independent of that.

Thoughts? Don't feel obligated to comment of course.


----------



## DergenTheDragon (Oct 22, 2020)

I have a weird mental condition where although I could have intercourse with another person, I have no desire to, yet a can (and often do) fantasize about such things (As my late night RP furry companion will tell you) , it's got some weird medical name that I can't remember so I've looked it up:

"Autochorisexual describes a person who can be aroused by sexual material and may masturbate, fantasize and/or watch porn but has no desire to seek a partner or have sexual interactions themselves. This can be considered a form of asexuality."


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 22, 2020)

I’m 27 and I never really pursued sexual intercourse with someone, and the thought of real life penetration doesn’t always appeal to me, despite my preference for men. I’m at this point in my life where I could care less if I ever had sex or not. Really I just enjoy being in relationships in and of themselves regardless of if things get physical or not.


----------



## inkbloom (Oct 22, 2020)

I am asexual so I put down voluntarily celibate. I have never experienced sexual attraction and have never wanted sexual intimacy with anyone. There may come a time and a person which would make me consider doing some things for their pleasure, but it is not something I look for in my relationships.


----------



## TemetNosce88 (Oct 22, 2020)

I've only had sex with people I've been in committed relationships with, casual sex just never appealed to me and always seemed more risk than it was worth.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Punji said:


> The furry fandom has an infamous reputation of being rather promiscuous and that's all I'll say on that.
> 
> I'm curious as to how true this may be for our demographic, though obviously this is just for fun so I won't go into too much detail or subcategorize at all. Maybe someday we could poll a larger percentage of the fandom and class by age, sex & gender identity, orientation, and partner preferences/requirements, but for now we're not writing any papers on this.
> 
> ...


When I'm in a relationship, of course sex and kinky fun is amazing! 
When I'm not in a relationship, hookups are something I don't actively seek, but I will not say no if brought up. 
(I'm monogamous, I don't do polly or open relationships)


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

I guess I'd consider myself Conditionally, in the sense that; I love making my partners happy, I gain emotional and sometimes even physical pleasure purely from watching a partner react to things that I do. However, I don't go out of my way to initiate things outside of being "occasionally" playful with my SO's, and if I'm not dating someone I just use toys and call it a day. I find sex with strangers, FWB's, and other such arrangements acceptable fun for others but not necessarily my cup of tea (and I have tried it on a few occasions to test it out so I'm not speaking for lack of experience with the setup, so to speak). In the end, sex is a bonding time for me, it holds a lot of emotional intimacy in it that I can't really get from "just some person". It's gotta be someone I love, and at that point, would it really be so bad of me to want to make someone I love happy? Or is that just too promiscuous of me?


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Punji said:


> The furry fandom has an infamous reputation of being rather promiscuous and that's all I'll say on that.
> 
> I'm curious as to how true this may be for our demographic, though obviously this is just for fun so I won't go into too much detail or subcategorize at all. Maybe someday we could poll a larger percentage of the fandom and class by age, sex & gender identity, orientation, and partner preferences/requirements, but for now we're not writing any papers on this.
> 
> ...


I will add, now, that my future relationship if I find one, the person has to be kid friendly or have one of their own, or at least experience with kids.  I have a 3 year old kiddo.  

^_^"


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2020)

I'm a cheeseburger fox, I don't have the luxury of such things.


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> I'm a cheeseburger fox, I don't have the luxury of such things.



The luxury of sex or the luxury of celibacy?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 22, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> I'm a cheeseburger fox, I don't have the luxury of such things.


At least you have food porn


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> The luxury of sex or the luxury of celibacy?


Both.



[Nexus] said:


> At least you have food porn


I am food porn.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> Both.
> 
> 
> I am food porn.


Out of curiosity, what's your favorite food?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2020)

Cheeseburger. But not just any cheeseburger, it has to be from cheeseburger planet.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> Cheeseburger. But not just any cheeseburger, it has to be from cheeseburger planet.


I gotta look into that!
Sounds delicious.


----------



## DergenTheDragon (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I gotta look into that!
> Sounds delicious.


I want cheeseburger now... but it's 10:30pm, I live in the middle of nowhere, everywhere is closed because of COVID. Reeeeeeeeee


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

DergenTheDragon said:


> I want cheeseburger now... but it's 10:30pm, I live in the middle of nowhere, everywhere is closed because of COVID. Reeeeeeeeee


What about a nice, juicy cheeseburger with some crispy bacon dipped in a little barbecue sauce slid in the burger with nicely seasoned curly fries and a cold crisp soda? 
Derp.


----------



## DergenTheDragon (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> What about a nice, juicy cheeseburger with some crispy bacon dipped in a little barbecue sauce slid in the burger with nicely seasoned curly fries and a cold crisp soda?
> Derp.


Stop making me think of food! Plus I couldn't eat it even if I had one, I've just come out of a 5 day severe case of food poisoning, my stomach has shrunk to about the size of a small marble from not being able to eat. And my teeth are royally f***ed so i can't bite anything to crunchy and I can't go to dentist cuz they're all closed for COVID, PLUS there's a travel ban..... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

(This is all irl btw, non of this is in character. THIS HOWEVER IS)

Yes gimme burger *Salivates intensely at the thought of food*


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

I'm pretty open but not wildly promiscuous.
I enjoy having maybe a few friends I'm close with to enjoy such activities.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

DergenTheDragon said:


> Stop making me think of food! Plus I couldn't eat it even if I had one, I've just come out of a 5 day severe case of food poisoning, my stomach has shrunk to about the size of a small marble from not being able to eat. And my teeth are royally f***ed so i can't bite anything to crunchy and I can't go to dentist cuz they're all closed for COVID, PLUS there's a travel ban..... REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
> 
> (This is all irl btw, non of this is in character. THIS HOWEVER IS)
> 
> Yes gimme burger *Salivates intensely at the thought of food*


Food poisoning? Aww. No Bueno! I'm sorry to hear that.


----------



## Slytherin Umbreon (Oct 22, 2020)

I'm surprised how many people voted for voluntary/conditional celibacy


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Slytherin Umbreon said:


> I'm surprised how many people voted for voluntary/conditional celibacy


I don't go around screwing everything that walks, I guess you could say I heavily prefer to do things in a relationship.  But as I stated, while I don't actively seek out "fun", I wouldn't say no if something is brought up by another person who has similar if not the same interests.  
Do I make sense..? I'm not sure if I do.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 22, 2020)

Involuntary celibate really shouldn't be on this list.

That is 'fancy pants talk' for 'doesn't get laid because no one will sleep with me'. And to be fair, incels seem to be the sort of people who treat others like pure sex objects. That isn't exactly the way to win people over to liking you, let alone jumping into bed with you.

To be entirely fair, incels would get laid if they had a personality and were actually respectful. Kindness is attractive. Just a word of advice there.

On topic, though...I'm not celibate. I am monogamous and won't be sleeping with anyone who isn't my romantic partner. Call me old fashioned, but that's how I do relationships. People are free to choose whatever system or dynamic they like so long as no one feels left out or hurt. That's my take on it.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Involuntary celibate really shouldn't be on this list.
> 
> That is 'fancy pants talk' for 'doesn't get laid because no one will sleep with me'. And to be fair, incels seem to be the sort of people who treat others like pure sex objects. That isn't exactly the way to win people over to liking you, let alone jumping into bed with you.
> 
> ...


You could leave out the word incel..  That's not kind.  But I agree with you 100% on your opinion.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> You could leave out the word incel..  That's not kind.  But I agree with you 100% on your opinion.


It's short for 'involuntary celibate'.
I don't see how shortening the word is somehow unkind, but the full version is perfectly fine.
But I'll apologise.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> It's short for 'involuntary celibate'.
> I don't see how shortening the word is somehow unkind, but the full version is perfectly fine.
> But I'll apologise.


The full version makes more sense, and wouldn't offend said person.  These days people like to be offended over anything and everything.  Better safer than sorry.  I don't mean to sound like a dick.


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> The full version makes more sense, and wouldn't offend said person.  These days people like to be offended over anything and everything.  Better safer than sorry.  I don't mean to sound like a dick.



Gotta agree with KD though, in the end it really is just dress up.
Granted, not everyone who isn't currently getting laid thinks the world OWES them sex.
I know plenty of friends who just aren't confident enough (or peppy enough) to want to go out, but do want to eventually have sex with people they love, they just don't make it a priority in their lives. To me, that's involuntary celeb-bull-crap that doesn't actively seem...well, whatever the internet depicts it to be. Nothing wrong with wanting something and not having it. Every human has their wants.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> Gotta agree with KD though, in the end it really is just dress up.
> Granted, not everyone who isn't currently getting laid thinks the world OWES them sex.
> I know plenty of friends who just aren't confident enough (or peppy enough) to want to go out, but do want to eventually have sex with people they love, they just don't make it a priority in their lives. To me, that's involuntary celeb-bull-crap that doesn't actively seem...well, whatever the internet depicts it to be. Nothing wrong with wanting something and not having it. Every human has their wants.


I'm not arguing against or for, I just simply said people might freak out over the word Incel instead of the full wording.  Because that's 2020 now? I guess? I see it everywhere, people will have a cow over the silliest things.  

I'm monogamous, I heavily prefer relationship fun, though I will not deny a opportunity or someone who has similar if not the same interests as me, if they bring it up or hint to it.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> Gotta agree with KD though, in the end it really is just dress up.
> Granted, not everyone who isn't currently getting laid thinks the world OWES them sex.
> I know plenty of friends who just aren't confident enough (or peppy enough) to want to go out, but do want to eventually have sex with people they love, they just don't make it a priority in their lives. To me, that's involuntary celeb-bull-crap that doesn't actively seem...well, whatever the internet depicts it to be. Nothing wrong with wanting something and not having it. Every human has their wants.


Agreed. Everyone has their wants and desires.

To be honest, there are some people I think don't get laid enough in this fandom. I often wonder why nobody snatches them up. That's a rather crude way of putting it...but there are lovely people in this fandom who do deserve to have meaningful relationships.

When I hear 'I should be having sex but no one gives me it'...that's pretty much self-explanatory. If you treat people with respect, you're automatically so much more attractive. Granted, there will always be some people who are shallow and only care about appearance...but I think that way of thinking is in decline, maybe.

If you have the personality of dried soap, I don't think you're gonna get many offers. Normally, people do have personalities and emotions and all the rest...but hide it beneath a heavy layer so it never gets seen.

Involuntary celibates are one half affected by shallow people and the other half affected by their own crappy behaviour. I don't mean any offence when I use the term because it's multi-faceted and everybody has a different case.

If you ARE involuntarily celibate, my advice is: Have a personality, be nice, don't treat people as sex objects, don't think anyone owes you anything and just have some patience.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> It's short for 'involuntary celibate'.
> I don't see how shortening the word is somehow unkind, but the full version is perfectly fine.
> But I'll apologise.



The term "incel" was coined by in 1993 by a female college student who was lamenting her lack of sex due to a lack of partner. It wasn't a woe-is-me sort of thing, but rather a forum for sharing preferences and experiences. It even spawned, in the early 2000's, effectively a support group for the socially awkward who just couldn't seem to get it on. It then morphed into what it is now. But the original useage - without shortening - was explicitly meant for people who want to and are able to have sex but can't due mostly to a lack of partner. I've seen it still used as such, with "incel" having the negative connotation you're getting at.

Fundamentally, given the subject, I think it is an important distinction - even if perhaps a better term is required. Someone who works a night shift, or lives in the boonies, or similar may have just a shear lack of options. This means through no fault of their own, they're celibate. Alternatively, someone on certain meds may very well want to have it, but also can't because things won't work would count. Or unfortunate injuries. Really, there's *alot* of reasons why someone may not have sex, and to assume someone who's frustrated by it just sees other people as sex objects is very rash.

I'd expand this to say that assuming their views, or attacking people for having the gall to lament the "friend zone" is counter productive. If people get shit even before complaining, or without complaining, that's hardly going to help them. Let's not jump to conclusions here. If someone says "I can't get laid because women just don't understand how good I am" then that's one thing, but "I can't get laid because women scare the hell out of me" is entirely another.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> The term "incel" was coined by in 1993 by a female college student who was lamenting her lack of sex due to a lack of partner. It wasn't a woe-is-me sort of thing, but rather a forum for sharing preferences and experiences. It even spawned, in the early 2000's, effectively a support group for the socially awkward who just couldn't seem to get it on. It then morphed into what it is now. But the original useage - without shortening - was explicitly meant for people who want to and are able to have sex but can't due mostly to a lack of partner. I've seen it still used as such, with "incel" having the negative connotation you're getting at.
> 
> Fundamentally, given the subject, I think it is an important distinction - even if perhaps a better term is required. Someone who works a night shift, or lives in the boonies, or similar may have just a shear lack of options. This means through no fault of their own, they're celibate. Alternatively, someone on certain meds may very well want to have it, but also can't because things won't work would count. Or unfortunate injuries. Really, there's *alot* of reasons why someone may not have sex, and to assume someone who's frustrated by it just sees other people as sex objects is very rash.
> 
> I'd expand this to say that assuming their views, or attacking people for having the gall to lament the "friend zone" is counter productive. If people get shit even before complaining, or without complaining, that's hardly going to help them. Let's not jump to conclusions here. If someone says "I can't get laid because women just don't understand how good I am" then that's one thing, but "I can't get laid because women scare the hell out of me" is entirely another.


I agree.
To narrow down an entire phenomenon to a small group of variables is little more than perpetuating stereotypes and ultimately could cause more harm.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 22, 2020)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> The term "incel" was coined by in 1993 by a female college student who was lamenting her lack of sex due to a lack of partner. It wasn't a woe-is-me sort of thing, but rather a forum for sharing preferences and experiences. It even spawned, in the early 2000's, effectively a support group for the socially awkward who just couldn't seem to get it on. It then morphed into what it is now. But the original useage - without shortening - was explicitly meant for people who want to and are able to have sex but can't due mostly to a lack of partner. I've seen it still used as such, with "incel" having the negative connotation you're getting at.
> 
> Fundamentally, given the subject, I think it is an important distinction - even if perhaps a better term is required. Someone who works a night shift, or lives in the boonies, or similar may have just a shear lack of options. This means through no fault of their own, they're celibate. Alternatively, someone on certain meds may very well want to have it, but also can't because things won't work would count. Or unfortunate injuries. Really, there's *alot* of reasons why someone may not have sex, and to assume someone who's frustrated by it just sees other people as sex objects is very rash.
> 
> I'd expand this to say that assuming their views, or attacking people for having the gall to lament the "friend zone" is counter productive. If people get shit even before complaining, or without complaining, that's hardly going to help them. Let's not jump to conclusions here. If someone says "I can't get laid because women just don't understand how good I am" then that's one thing, but "I can't get laid because women scare the hell out of me" is entirely another.


Refer to my later post.

Also refer to where I said I am using it to mean 'involuntary celibate' and am not using it in a derogatory manner.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Refer to my later post.
> 
> Also refer to where I said I am using it to mean 'involuntary celibate' and am not using it in a derogatory manner.


I think we all need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and relax on a couch or the bed, it seems like this is spiralling out of control here.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I think we all need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and relax on a couch or the bed, it seems like this is spiralling out of control here.


Taking a step back. I think I was fair in what I said, however if people disagree, then that's fine.

I also apologised previously for using the term.
My mistake.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Taking a step back. I think I was fair in what I said, however if people disagree, then that's fine.
> 
> I also apologised previously for using the term.
> My mistake.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Refer to my later post.
> 
> Also refer to where I said I am using it to mean 'involuntary celibate' and am not using it in a derogatory manner.



I did see it, but it took me a while to get that typed and you just happened to have prompted it. I didn't expect that many posts in the interim. This is a loaded subject, and the history of the term is not well known and more trivia than anything at this point. Also, your first post came on... strong.

I mean, you have a point in the rest of what you said - that's just dating 101. It's just getting there can take a lot of introspection, and introspection starts with... Randomly quasi-derailed posts on FA, I guess.


----------



## Punji (Oct 22, 2020)

With regards to the involuntary celibacy discussion, I thought about that before posting, yeah.

I can definitely see where one might be coming from, and I don't disagree entirely. However, I did also include the caveat of "suitable partners" and just being flat out not able to engage in the activity to cover all the bases. 

But in my opinion doesn't feel appropriate to intensify the questioning and differentiate between supposed "involuntary" and physical, emotional, or mental involuntary celibacy for something that's just meant as a fun poll about our fandom demographic. It may be anonymous, but it can still be unpleasant to answer for some people I fear.


----------



## Tetrachroma (Oct 22, 2020)

If I'm reading this correctly, I'd be conditional celibate. I'm probably the only person in the fandom who's in the "waiting til marriage" boat. I try to stick true to my Christian faith, though I'd never trod on anyone who chooses otherwise (as long as they're not actively trying to hurt anyone of course)

_Probably kills my chances of being with someone in the fandom tho._


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Tetrachroma said:


> If I'm reading this correctly, I'd be conditional celibate. I'm probably the only person in the fandom who's in the "waiting til marriage" boat. I try to stick true to my Christian faith, though I'd never trod on anyone who chooses otherwise (as long as they're not actively trying to hurt anyone of course)
> 
> _Probably kills my chances of being with someone in the fandom tho._


I passed that sea long ago.  Click on my profile picture, you'll see what I mean. He is my world, and I wouldn't change anything for him.


----------



## Mambi (Oct 22, 2020)

Punji said:


> The furry fandom has an infamous reputation of being rather promiscuous and that's all I'll say on that.
> 
> I'm curious as to how true this may be for our demographic, though obviously this is just for fun so I won't go into too much detail or subcategorize at all. Maybe someday we could poll a larger percentage of the fandom and class by age, sex & gender identity, orientation, and partner preferences/requirements, but for now we're not writing any papers on this.



I'm happily married, have been for a *very *long time now, and have _extremely _good sex multiple times a week with my soulmate lover. 
_<blushes through his fur as he sees some others glaring, trying not to appear to brag as he merely answers the poll honestly>_


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 22, 2020)

I think I'm Conditional? I wouldn't do the nasty with anyone unless I'd been dating them for at least a year and I loved them.
Not religious. Just preference.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 22, 2020)

I am in a long term monogamous relationship, going on 12 years now.

I have never been promiscuous and have had only two partners, including my current one, and that is by choice.

My first thirty years of life consisted of me being too socially awkward and shy, not to mention the risk of getting pregnant did not make it worth being sexually active.


----------



## zandelux (Oct 22, 2020)

I've only been posting a very short time on FAF, but I've been really blown away so far by how respectful people have been to each other, even in disagreement. Most other places, it seems, online or offline, people just dig in deeper and escalate disagreements into hatred.

But anyway, I'm probably an odd mix between conditional and involuntary. Involuntary due to dealing with a lot of other stuff in my life right now. Conditional in that I could probably get _something_ if I tried, but I've been there and it really isn't that satisfying to me. I am going through a dry spell, but these days the emotional dry spell feels worse than the physical part. I'd rather focus on getting the aforementioned stuff fixed, so that I can take the time to find something meaningful. (Which I like to believe is still possible for me.)


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> I often wonder why nobody snatches them up. That's a rather crude way of putting it...but there are lovely people in this fandom who do deserve to have meaningful relationships.



That answer is quite obvious; it's a mix of differing desires, circumstances, and life choices.
There is no "need" for someone to be "snatched up" by another (crude intents or otherwise). It takes two to tango and all, and nothing is ever solely sexual. I have had relationships where sex wasn't even a major factor for more than five years. I think the focus on a stranger's choices in the bedroom is rather creepy, don't you? It's not really important what others decide to do with their free time. Though I do admit, seeing the statistics line up against the stereotypical "sexualized" community is pretty cool. Just because I enjoy comparing things like articles, data, etc.



zandelux said:


> I've only been posting a very short time on FAF, but I've been really blown away so far by how respectful people have been to each other, even in disagreement. Most other places, it seems, online or offline, people just dig in deeper and escalate disagreements into hatred.



*laughs in FA* Oh boy, just wait until the riff-raff notice the forum is back.
It won't matter because block buttons are holy items in any community but...it's best to mentally prepare yourself all the same.



KD142000 said:


> If you ARE involuntarily celibate, my advice is: Have a personality, be nice, don't treat people as sex objects, don't think anyone owes you anything and just have some patience.



I think it's important to recognize that being an involuntary celibate and being a shit human being aren't a hand in hand scenario.
Nor is being an involuntary-cell-babe automatically equating to having an issue with your personality, etc.
Unless it's online. A lot of shit human beings who happen to be [blank] tend to have no filter online and make any group they're apart of look like absolute dumpster fires. Just look at the Furry community- wait. >.>;


----------



## Guifrog (Oct 22, 2020)

There's stuff I'm into, kink-related, but I'm not a fan of being in a relationship, or having sex (as in penile/vaginal/anal/etc). I don't know whether that counts as conditionally or voluntarily celibate


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Guifrog said:


> There's stuff I'm into, kink-related, but I'm not a fan of being in a relationship, or having sex (as in penile/vaginal/anal/etc). I don't know whether that counts as conditionally or voluntarily celibate



I'd say conditionally since it doesn't outright prevent you (or you prevent yourself) from doing something entirely.
But that's just my two cents.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Guifrog said:


> There's stuff I'm into, kink-related, but I'm not a fan of being in a relationship, or having sex (as in penile/vaginal/anal/etc). I don't know whether that counts as conditionally or voluntarily celibate


Voluntary, I'd say, since you hold claim to your sexual expression.
You have an interesting take, though. I'm curious for more details, if you'd humor me.
We can PM if you're comfortable.


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Voluntary, I'd say, since you hold claim to your sexual expression.
> You have an interesting take, though. I'm curious for more details, if you'd humor me.
> We can PM if you're comfortable.



Wouldn't voluntary mean they never do anything sexual, period, by choice?
Whereas conditional depends on scenarios and circumstances?
Or do I have that mixed up?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> Wouldn't voluntary mean they never do anything sexual, period, by choice?
> Whereas conditional depends on scenarios and circumstances?
> Or do I have that mixed up?


I see voluntary as saying "I personally do not enjoy the idea of sex and that's why I do not have it"
Conditional: "I do like sex, but I have a sturdy list of criteria that could, for a period, prevent me from having sex"
Conditional in this thread, how I read it, is a modification of not celibate, by adding more rules.

It's why I said non-celibate instead of conditional because I have less-than-traditional views on sexuality, even though I still have a condition to determine who I have sex with.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that there are those who are asexual who still enjoy intimacy and other actions without actively looking for sex itself.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> Wouldn't voluntary mean they never do anything sexual, period, by choice?
> Whereas conditional depends on scenarios and circumstances?
> Or do I have that mixed up?


Yes. Voluntary means by choice.  Your correct. 
Conditional means there are conditions on why you would or wouldn't.


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I see voluntary as saying "I personally do not enjoy the idea of sex and that's why I do not have it"
> Conditional: "I do like sex, but I have a sturdy list of criteria that could, for a period, prevent me from having sex"
> Conditional in this thread, how I read it, is a modification of not celibate, by adding more rules.
> 
> ...



Ah ~ thanks for clearing that up for me.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Oct 22, 2020)

To add - strictly speaking everyone non-celibate is, to some degree, "conditional." Roughly speaking conditions on appearance, gender, willingness, location, etc. are all conditions. How I took what @Toby_Morpheus met is conditional adds requirements which are not universal. Needing to be married might count to me as conditional. Needing to have known them for a long period of time. Basically, beyond the perceived "norm."

Or, in the literal sense, I know second hand of someone who literally wouldn't have sex without a defined "contract" of sorts. So that would be taking it a bit literally. I know second hand because this, eventually, did explode into some major drama...

It's self reporting anyhow, so it's what you'd consider yourself - do you feel that you have rules which exceed the norms of other people? Then I'd consider it conditional.

Edit: My bad, OP is @Punji


----------



## aomagrat (Oct 22, 2020)

Voluntary celibate here.  Since my wife left me for a Waffle House cook, I've had a few liaisons with bar pick ups and ladies of the evening,  but now for religious reasons I courteously abstain. And after watching a few episodes of Paternity Court I am happy with my decision.


----------



## Arishipshape (Oct 22, 2020)

Tetrachroma said:


> If I'm reading this correctly, I'd be conditional celibate. I'm probably the only person in the fandom who's in the "waiting til marriage" boat.


*offers fistbump*


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

aomagrat said:


> Voluntary celibate here.  Since my wife left me for a Waffle House cook, I've had a few liaisons with bar pick ups and ladies of the evening,  but now for religious reasons I courteously abstain. And after watching a few episodes of Paternity Court I am happy with my decision.


Thank you for your service, by the way. A lot of people take it for granted. I really appreciate your service and what you have sacrificed.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Ziggy Schlacht said:


> To add - strictly speaking everyone non-celibate is, to some degree, "conditional." Roughly speaking conditions on appearance, gender, willingness, location, etc. are all conditions. How I took what @Toby_Morpheus met is conditional adds requirements which are not universal. Needing to be married might count to me as conditional. Needing to have known them for a long period of time. Basically, beyond the perceived "norm."
> 
> Or, in the literal sense, I know second hand of someone who literally wouldn't have sex without a defined "contract" of sorts. So that would be taking it a bit literally. I know second hand because this, eventually, did explode into some major drama...
> 
> ...


I was gonna say

I see you thinking about me though ;P
*pushes playfully*


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 22, 2020)

I’m celibate because of the pandemic. Which’s sucks [sic] because I was finally getting courageous enough to actually do stuff with real people.


----------



## aomagrat (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Thank you for your service, by the way. A lot of people take it for granted. I really appreciate your service and what you have sacrificed.


The like button doesn't convey the feeling of thanks that I feel, so I'll say it in person. Thank you!


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I’m celibate because of the pandemic. Which’s sucks [sic] because I was finally getting courageous enough to actually do stuff with real people.


Doesn't stop me any ;D


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Oct 22, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I’m celibate because of the pandemic. Which’s sucks [sic] because I was finally getting courageous enough to actually do stuff with real people.


I have a friend just like that, but he very much insists he's not a furry, and even if it he was, his Fursona wouldn't be a red panda. You're not alone in this.

Well, there's a new thing to add to "involuntarily celibate" - COVID lockdowns.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 22, 2020)

aomagrat said:


> The like button doesn't convey the feeling of thanks that I feel, so I'll say it in person. Thank you!


Absolutely! I have a three year old son, and the freedom you defend and sacrifice will help him lead a more free and happy life, because of what you have given for us.  You truly are amazing, and I very much appreciate what you have gone through for everyone, regardless if they appreciate it or not. You kick ass, thank you.


----------



## Punji (Oct 22, 2020)

Personally I was sort of thinking conditionally celibate included special circumstances, and not celibate would just be a regular situation.

Having a life and standards doesn't count as conditional, that's assumed.  

As for voluntary, I imagine it as anyone capable of intercourse who chooses not to perform it with another person. Asexual, disinterested, or just not ready yet, whatever the case is as long as a person could but doesn't and wouldn't I think.

I will say though, I'm fairly surprised as the even spread, I expected two peaks and fewer conditional/voluntary.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Absolutely! I have a three year old son, and the freedom you defend and sacrifice will help him lead a more free and happy life, because of what you have given for us.  You truly are amazing, and I very much appreciate what you have gone through for everyone, regardless if they appreciate it or not. You kick ass, thank you.


I uh...
I don't understand.
How does what someone else chooses with their sexuality affect you in any way, if not directly involved?


----------



## Raever (Oct 22, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I uh...
> I don't understand.
> How does what someone else chooses with their sexuality affect you in any way, if not directly involved?



*was also confused but didn't wanna sound dumb by asking what happened* I assumed I just missed something.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Raever said:


> *was also confused but didn't wanna sound dumb by asking what happened* I assumed I just missed something.


Well allow me to sound dumb in your stead ;D
*bows*


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 22, 2020)

Didn’t know the roots the word incel has. It’s ashame it became so derogatory now. Probably won’t ever use the word again since it just further promotes its usage for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Didn’t know the roots the word incel has. It’s ashame it became so derogatory now. Probably won’t ever use the word again since it just further promotes its usage for all the wrong reasons.


People often fear what they do not understand.


----------



## Meta_Tiara (Oct 22, 2020)

It's a shame that the word became associated with _those_ kinds of people. There really needs to be a new term that doesn't invoke those connotations. Still, the last option describes me the closest. I am fine with having sex outside of marriage, but I'm too socially awkward and shy to bring the question up or even ask to be in a relationship with.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 22, 2020)

Meta_Tiara said:


> It's a shame that the word became associated with _those_ kinds of people. There really needs to be a new term that doesn't invoke those connotations. Still, the last option describes me the closest. I am fine with having sex outside of marriage, but I'm too socially awkward and shy to bring the question up or even ask to be in a relationship with.


Wanna watch a movie with me sometime? 
;3


----------



## Meta_Tiara (Oct 23, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Wanna watch a movie with me sometime?
> ;3


I'd be up for it later. I don't think it's PG-13 or below movie, so it sounds fun. ;P


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 23, 2020)

Meta_Tiara said:


> I'd be up for it later. I don't think it's PG-13 or below movie, so it sounds fun. ;P


I'm about to hop in bed so
Sometime tomorrow (friday) or this weekend?
We can sort out the details then.


----------



## LameFox (Oct 23, 2020)

I suppose you could say I'm voluntarily celibate, but celibacy isn't the point. I don't care enough to look for casual sex and haven't met anyone I'd want a relationship with in ages. Probably because most people I encounter online are like 10 years younger than me in addition to living overseas.


----------



## Raever (Oct 23, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Well allow me to sound dumb in your stead ;D
> *bows*



My bad, didn't mean it that way - but I appreciate you taking the bullet for me all the same.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 23, 2020)

Raever said:


> My bad, didn't mean it that way - but I appreciate you taking the bullet for me all the same.


Hahaha you're good
Youre welcome <3


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I'm not arguing against or for, I just simply said people might freak out over the word Incel instead of the full wording. Because that's 2020 now? I guess? I see it everywhere, people will have a cow over the silliest things.



The term "Incel" has effectively replaced virgin as the premier one-size-fits-all normie insult for any man who openly criticizes, mocks, or otherwise takes issue with something involving an individual woman or women as a collective. A lot of the "you're an incel lul" commentary stems from _legions_ of buttery milquetoast dudes who have yet to realize that white-knighting for random anonymous women on the internet is a mostly fruitless endeavor since it does fuck-all except make them look like absolute simps. _Thank fuck _most of this stuff is restricted to the internet since meat space is (mostly) still sane on inter-gender relations and grows saner ever still as more and more men realize that late teen to very early twenty-something Redditors and Tweeple can be safely ignored whenever they start harping on about the proper protocol one must follow when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.

It's funny too, because while these same people are quick to viciously castigate any man who overtly "devalues" a woman by regarding her as a mere sexual object, they will turn around and insult other men for allegedly being unable to slide their sausage into a woman's slice of roast beef. This effectively insinuates that a woman's value is _inherently _-- and perhaps even _exclusively _-- grounded in her sexuality, and that a man's _only _measure of value is firmly derived from his ability to access that sexuality.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

ASTA said:


> The term "Incel" has effectively replaced virgin as the premier one-size-fits-all normie insult for any man who openly criticizes, mocks, or otherwise takes issue with something involving an individual woman or women as a collective. A lot of the "you're an incel lul" commentary stems from _legions_ of buttery milquetoast dudes who have yet to realize that white-knighting for random anonymous women on the internet is a mostly fruitless endeavor since it does fuck-all except make them look like absolute simps. _Thank fuck _most of this stuff is restricted to the internet since meat space is (mostly) still sane on inter-gender relations and grows saner ever still as more and more men realize that late teen to very early twenty-something Redditors and Tweeple can be safely ignored whenever they start harping on about the proper protocol one must follow when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex.
> 
> It's funny too, because while these same people are quick to viciously castigate any man who overtly "devalues" a woman by regarding her as a mere sexual object, they will turn around and insult other men for allegedly being unable to slide their sausage into a woman's slice of roast beef. This effectively insinuates that a woman's value is _inherently _-- and perhaps even _exclusively _-- grounded in her sexuality, and that a man's _only _measure of value is firmly derived from his ability to access that sexuality.


Wow Trash Man back at it again. People who take issue with all women as a collective are trash. End of story.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Wow Trash Man back at it again. People who take issue with all women as a collective are trash. End of story.



Stay miserable lmao.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 23, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Doesn't stop me any ;D
> View attachment 91765



Draw me like one of your French... hazmat workers


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Not all men are after women like savages, weirdo.  You should know, white knight in shining armor.  Please be more mature in apparently deeming all of one gender to be monsters.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Wow Trash Man back at it again. People who take issue with all women as a collective are trash. End of story.


Toxic feminist.  Such a disgrace to what feminism once was.  
Your a disgrace.  Please take your sexism elsewhere.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Toxic feminist.  Such a disgrace to what feminism once was.
> Your a disgrace.  Please take your sexism elsewhere.


So saying that not all women are bad makes me a toxic feminist? Okay then.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So saying that not all women are bad makes me a toxic feminist? Okay then.


Just like all men aren't bad. Get the picture..? Or do I have to spell it out for you.  Openly hating on all things, be it gender, race, or sexuality, and claiming that one whole group is evil or trash..  do I even have to say how fucked up that is..? 
Humanity isn't created the same.  Some are bad, some are good. 
Don't assume one whole group is fucked just because there are bad seeds in said group.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Just like all men aren't bad. Get the picture..? Or do I have to spell it out for you.  Openly hating on all things, be it gender, race, or sexuality, and claiming that one whole group is evil or trash..  do I even have to say how fucked up that is..?
> Humanity isn't created the same.  Some are bad, some are good.
> Don't assume one whole group is fucked just because there are bad seeds in said group.


You know, I really don't seem to remember Ovidia every saying that all men are bad...?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Just like all men aren't bad. Get the picture..? Or do I have to spell it out for you.  Openly hating on all things, be it gender, race, or sexuality, and claiming that one whole group is evil or trash..  do I even have to say how fucked up that is..?
> Humanity isn't created the same.  Some are bad, some are good.
> Don't assume one whole group is fucked just because there are bad seeds in said group.


Where in the hell did I say all men are bad?


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Some are bad. Some are good. reward those who are genuinely good people, don't associate with the bad people.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Some are bad. Some are good. reward those who are genuinely good people, don't associate with the bad people.


Yes please just walk on past the part where you accused me of being a toxic feminist over something I didn't say.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Where in the hell did I say all men are bad?


Trash man. I see it all the time, when people say the new hashtag, #KAM (Kill All Men)
All men are useless, down with the patriarchy, etc. Feminists have absolutely taken a turn for the worst. It's like the want power, not equality.  Its truly terrifying.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Trash man. I see it all the time, when people say the new hashtag, #KAM (Kill All Men)
> All men are useless, down with the patriarchy, etc. Feminists have absolutely taken a turn for the worst. It's like the want power, not equality.  Its truly terrifying.


Yes but when did *Ovidia *say all men are bad? You are literally just assuming that they said that for no reason.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Trash man. I see it all the time, when people say the new hashtag, #KAM (Kill All Men)
> All men are useless, down with the patriarchy, etc. Feminists have absolutely taken a turn for the worst. It's like the want power, not equality.  Its truly terrifying.


Wut? It's a Dani Devito thing.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Yes but when did *Ovidia *say all men are bad? You are literally just assuming that they said that for no reason.


At this point I can only assume from fear.  Do you not see how things have changed recently..?   I have a son, and I live in fear of bad shit happening to him or me, just because we are males. Things get violent.  Its absolutely terrifying.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Wut? It's a Dani Devito thing.


Jesus Christ.  I'm sorry. I made a ass of myself, I assumed.  I'm very sorry. 
I'm a idiot. I'm so sorry


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> At this point I can only assume from fear.  Do you not see how things have changed recently..?   I have a son, and I live in fear of bad shit happening to him or me, just because we are males. Things get violent.  Its absolutely terrifying.


Dude, I am a guy, no one has caused violence because I am a guy. Calm down.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 23, 2020)

Also tail plugs = love. Just saying.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Jesus Christ.  I'm sorry. I made a ass of myself, I assumed.  I'm very sorry.
> I'm a idiot. I'm so sorry


You're fine but you need to take a step back and calm down.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You're fine but you need to take a step back and calm down.


I'm sorry.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You're fine but you need to take a step back and calm down.


I'm absolutely embarrassed.  Sorry.


----------



## Rayd (Oct 23, 2020)

idk if i'll ever be mentally stable enough for a relationship, and in the same light would probably be pretty incapable of intercourse. but i never really think about it nor desire or strive for it, so i'm not entirely sure where that would put me, as humiliating as the options are.


----------



## Kinare (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm kind of a mix of voluntary and involuntary by your definition.

I voluntarily have rejected people who wanted me cuz I didn't want to just fuck, I need an emotional connection, and it's hard for me to get that.

Involuntarily, I have not found someone worthy of doing the deed with. I'm after a relationship with more substance that "lul let's fuck regularly", and unfortunately that is not the case with the majority of people I meet, let alone actually being compatible with them in the long term.

I also don't have a "need" for intercourse, so I'd be happy in an asexual relationship if I found someone who was compatible otherwise.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

Raever said:


> That answer is quite obvious; it's a mix of differing desires, circumstances, and life choices.
> There is no "need" for someone to be "snatched up" by another (crude intents or otherwise). It takes two to tango and all, and nothing is ever solely sexual. I have had relationships where sex wasn't even a major factor for more than five years. I think the focus on a stranger's choices in the bedroom is rather creepy, don't you? It's not really important what others decide to do with their free time. Though I do admit, seeing the statistics line up against the stereotypical "sexualized" community is pretty cool. Just because I enjoy comparing things like articles, data, etc.
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was just offering advice to those who are involuntary celibate but not due to circumstances out of their control. 

Sorry...I'm an idiot and I can't apologise enough...
Sorry guys. I didn't mean anything nasty.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

Aprilycan said:


> idk if i'll ever be mentally stable enough for a relationship, and in the same light would probably be pretty incapable of intercourse. but i never really think about it nor desire or strive for it, so i'm not entirely sure where that would put me, as humiliating as the options are.


That is for you to decide, honestly. Whilst someone can't be 100% prepared for a relationship of any kind, it still does help to get yourself sorted out mentally. Whilst it's OK to seek solace and help from a partner, it should be noted we should try to get ourselves mostly in order, too. That way, it doesn't strain the relationship or cause other issues within it.

As for the intercourse part, it is probably a good idea to chat about that with someone privately or with a partner in the future. That'd definitely help.

Not my place to do so, but I'd say you might be conditionally celibate, based on this? But that's not up to me to say for sure.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 23, 2020)

Man, all this celibacy is hard with all this glorious ass!


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> Man, all this celibacy is hard with all this glorious ass!



Got any fun jokes or memes to cheer up this thread?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 23, 2020)

Here's a pile of stuffed toys. Now everyone shaddap and _awwwwwwwwwwwww....




_


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> Here's a pile of stuffed toys. Now everyone shaddap and _awwwwwwwwwwwww....
> 
> View attachment 91772_


❤❤


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> Here's a pile of stuffed toys. Now everyone shaddap and _awwwwwwwwwwwww....
> 
> View attachment 91772_


You’re a good burger. I’ll eat you last


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 23, 2020)

https://imgur.com/a/sCEgGGu


----------



## Loffi (Oct 23, 2020)

Not celibate, but I could never see myself having sex outside of a relationship. The term nearest to what I would clump myself as being is Demisexual. I don't find people attractive. I can sometimes recognize that a person is physically attractive, but it does nothing for me as far as arousal goes. But if I get to know someone and become open to the idea of having them be a partner to me, I will get turned on by them. But I don't see a lot of people in that way, even if I do like them as a person, so I've only ever had two sexual partners. Both long-term relationships. I've had lots of fictional crushes though.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 23, 2020)

Clearly the poll should also have had a “pandemic celibate” option. 

Tbh if boyfriend didn’t live with me that’s where I’d be at - can’t see partners outside the household while social distancing. Even less so since only one of them (aside from boyfriend) is even remotely local.


----------



## Ziggy Schlacht (Oct 23, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> Clearly the poll should also have had a “pandemic celibate” option.
> 
> Tbh if boyfriend didn’t live with me that’s where I’d be at - can’t see partners outside the household while social distancing. Even less so since only one of them (aside from boyfriend) is even remotely local.



Isn't that why multiple countries advocated glory holes?


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

Stadt said:


> Not celibate, but I could never see myself having sex outside of a relationship. The term nearest to what I would clump myself as being is Demisexual. I don't find people attractive. I can sometimes recognize that a person is physically attractive, but it does nothing for me as far as arousal goes. But if I get to know someone and become open to the idea of having them be a partner to me, I will get turned on by them. But I don't see a lot of people in that way, even if I do like them as a person, so I've only ever had two sexual partners. Both long-term relationships. I've had lots of fictional crushes though.


I can agree with you on this one.  I've had a few long term relationships, and boy did I explore myself and had a ton of fun. Things got kinky. XD


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Wow Trash Man back at it again. People who take issue with all women as a collective are trash. End of story.


Nothing against you, but I personally thought they made a few good points, even if they may have worded it in a way that was unfavorable to people. I have noticed a trend in some men pushing this idea that if someone struggles to find a relationship with a women it must be because they have toxic and negative views on them, which if that were the case, would mean all men are “incels” until they find a partner, or if they are refraining from having a relationship for various personal reasons. Yes, there are some men who hate women and think they are objects, which is a good reason for them to be denied a relationship with one, but others who are afraid of commitment and other non mysoginistic reasons deserve not to receive the same label, especially from the kind of men ASTA mentioned.


----------



## MrSpookyBoots (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm honestly not sure. I want to say "voluntary celibate," as it is something I've agreed to do on certain occasions. Such occasions were when I was not in a relationship.

Honestly, sex is overrated. The people who want to screw anybody with legs likely won't find any meaning behind a relationship _beyond_ sex. I find it more enthralling to be with someone who I want to spend my time with. Sex is just a rare bonus.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Nothing against you, but I personally thought they made a few good points, even if they may have worded it in a way that was unfavorable to people. I have noticed a trend in some men pushing this idea that if someone struggles to find a relationship with a women it must be because they have toxic and negative views on them, which if that were the case, would mean all men are “incels” until they find a partner, or if they are refraining from having a relationship for various personal reasons. Yes, there are some men who hate women and think they are objects, which is a good reason for them to be denied a relationship with one, but others who are afraid of commitment and other non mysoginistic reasons deserve not to receive the same label, especially from the kind of men ASTA mentioned.


He specifically said that people who have a problem with all women are considered incels. Which honestly if they have that attitude to all women, it's no wonder they aren't getting it. Also where in the flying flip are you hanging out where all men are considered incels until they find a mate?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> He specifically said that people who have a problem with all women are considered incels. Which honestly if they have that attitude to all women, it's no wonder they aren't getting it. Also where in the flying flip are you hanging out where all men are considered incels until they find a mate?


It’s a war torn opinionated wasteland called twitter. I suggest avoiding it unless heavily armed.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> It’s a war torn opinionated wasteland called twitter. I suggest avoiding it unless heavily armed.


You seem to be following some bad crowds if that's the way people are acting. You can find whatever people you want to hang out with on twitter. Also don't confuse loud voices for lots of people.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You seem to be following some bad crowds if that's the way people are acting. You can find whatever people you want to hang out with on twitter. Also don't confuse loud voices for lots of people.


Nah, I don’t follow them, but I do come across their tweets when exploring randomly. My twitter account is for my unapologetic kinks , so I’m not interested in following people outside of my crowd. XD


----------



## Attaman (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I have noticed a trend in some men pushing this idea that if someone struggles to find a relationship with a women it must be because they have toxic and negative views on them,


 I mean, it was nuked with the Politics section, but...

ASTA literally defended one of the Incel shooters with "His hand was forced, look at what your feminism and mocking of Incels has wrought" a few years ago.

Or, to move away from that and stick to the thread, "Roast beef" is commentary used by Incels to infer that women are "ruined" by sexual promiscuity (to the point of resembling "roast beef" down there, which for that matter also has some pretty horrible implications / knee-jerk judgement values made considering there's a _lot_ of variance in appearance down there), and "devalues" was put in quotation marks when discussing women being seen as walking fleshlights. The fact that the best argument I can see for how the stances "Don't treat women as though they're sex accessories" and "Mock somebody for being a virgin" are hypocritical is "Why mock somebody for not doing something (having sex with a woman) that you admit isn't trivial?" Which infers some uncomfortable things about what sex is (particularly when taken in combination with the roast beef stuff: Women are supposed to reward you for good behavior, but a woman who sleeps with multiple men throughout her life is ruining herself and giving you sloppy seconds and generally of less _worth_ as a reward and whatnot).

I mean, hell: The entire argument that


ASTA said:


> This effectively insinuates that a woman's value is _inherently _-- and perhaps even _exclusively _-- grounded in her sexuality, and that a man's _only _measure of value is firmly derived from his ability to access that sexuality.


Kind of - accidentally or intentionally - ignores the concept of toxic masculinity *in and of its entirety* to hinge instead on how clearly somebody who holds the above two positions is hypocritical and merely changing "Women are sex objects" from a negative into a positive ("Women are sex objects, if you cannot access them it's your fault") instead of the much more logical conclusion of "They're an asshole / still fairly influenced by machismo norms, but can at least avoid openly calling women walking prize dispensaries."

I think we can relatively safely presume that there's some level of baggage.



[Nexus] said:


> which if that were the case, would mean all men are “incels” until they find a partner, or if they are refraining from having a relationship for various personal reasons.


 That's virgin. The term one's looking for is virgin. Which, well, see above: The fact that people will mock somebody for being a virgin is still a sign of machismo / assholish behavior, but it's distinctly different from either being an Incel or calling somebody an Incel because Incel specifically refers to the philosophy in much the same manner that Men's Rights Advocates does not refer to all people who advocate for men's rights but the sort of people who argue that the real thing keeping Men down is Feminism.



[Nexus] said:


> but others who are afraid of commitment and other non mysoginistic reasons deserve not to receive the same label, especially from the kind of men ASTA mentioned.


 I'll note that the main people I see using Incel as synonymous with virgin *are other Incels*, specifically to use it as a recruiting tactic and / or mock somebody for walking the walk (being "an involuntary celibate") but not talking the talk (realizing how women are keeping them down and how they need to embrace Incel psychology / mannerisms to "improve" themselves / have their ancient Greek philosopher inspiration moment).

Just as I can say "You can be a men's rights activist, but never go Men's Rights Activist", I can say the same about "You can be involuntarily celibate, but never be an *In*voluntary *Cel*ibate."


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Attaman said:


> I mean, it was nuked with the Politics section, but...
> 
> ASTA literally defended one of the Incel shooters with "His hand was forced, look at what your feminism and mocking of Incels has wrought" a few years ago.
> 
> ...


Fair point. I was unaware of some of these things, so Ill say my post was not that informed overall. I appreciate the civil response towards me considering these kinds of threads can get inflammatory,


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 23, 2020)

I've never been interested in sex, saves a lot of time and avoids a lot of bullshit


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

If this turns into a shit show, I shall be leaving this site for good.

Here's my point about involuntary celibacy. First of all, I don't think everyone who is 'involuntarily celibate' is a bad person. Far from it. It varies greatly on a case by case basis. But people do need to reading too much into the negative connotations if they're mentioned. Whilst I made a strong point, it was directed at involuntary celibates who match the description I made, not at others.

Second, for the involuntary celibates (I really have to keep using this word, huh?) who DON'T match that description, I would offer a very different approach and set of advice.

Third, for involuntary celibates who DO match the description of 'treating others as sex objects and thinking the whole world owes them sexual interaction', this is rightfully going to be treated as negative. It is not to say ALL involuntary celibates are like that. But it is to say SOME are like that.

I apologised yesterday for not going into as much depth as I did here. So I will apologise again.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 23, 2020)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I've never been interested in sex, saves a lot of time and avoids a lot of bullshit



Ummmm it's taken you years to put your hands on my back and give me that massage but my friend Becky said she saw you rubbing someone's shoulders yesterday?????? U_U 



KD142000 said:


> If this turns into a shit show, I shall be leaving this site for good.





Spoiler



U smell like wet dag.
*knocks over empty, plastic cup*


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Frank Gulotta said:


> I've never been interested in sex, saves a lot of time and avoids a lot of bullshit


Sex isn’t a requirement in life. We’ve evolved for millions of years and reached a point where not everyone has to have sex for our species to survive. In addition, it’s not the best thing in the world. Sure it may feel good to lots of people, but your not missing out on something extraordinary if you feel “eh, it’s not for me”. I’ll probably never have actual sex in my life, and I’m completely fine with that, because it’s not that big of a deal to me.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

Attaman said:


> See my above commentary. Or, for another example, the difference between "gamer" (somebody who at least semi-occasionally plays some form of - typically digital or tabletop - game as a hobby) and "Gamer"(TM) (see: Drinks exclusively Code Red, is prone to Heated Gamer Moments(tm) if they forget to turn their microphone off, has a pre-typed complaint to either send to game companies or include in reviews of games that include make use of more than one woman and / or minority character, etcetera). I... strongly recommend against using the terminology "involuntary celibate" because its origin is almost synonymous with its most popular use (Same reason I feel like calling somebody a gamer isn't fighting words, but calling them a men's rights activist will lead to rolled sleeves), but it's a technically valid choice of grammar.


Don't mean to be rude, but what term am I supposed to use, instead of that? You can't say 'I'd avoid using that terminology' but then never provide an alternative that is fine to use.


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 23, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Ummmm it's taken you years to put your hands on my back and give me that massage but my friend Becky said she saw you rubbing someone's shoulders yesterday?????? U_U


 ??


----------



## sshado (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm polyamorous and ideally would participate in a commune in person. I'm part of one digitally for now. That said, I only have one partner in person right now and I'm pretty selective.

Sex is lovely, but also a lot of work! Don't let the presence or lack of it define your life. Unless it's really important to you, then I suppose do what you want!


----------



## Attaman (Oct 23, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Don't mean to be rude, but what term am I supposed to use, instead of that? You can't say 'I'd avoid using that terminology' but then never provide an alternative that is fine to use.


 Personally, "virgin" works just fine if we're speaking somebody who has never had sex (I don't think one needs to specify exactly _why_ it is they haven't had sex, though this plays back into my earlier commentary about how the norm of mocking people depending on their sexual inclinations / proclivity is a bit of a dick move). And while I don't think we particularly need a terms for "Person who has had sex, but doesn't have as much as they'd desire", IIRC there's a pre-existing one in "blue-balled". 

...Not to be confused with blue-blood: For all that's good do not mix those two terms up.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

sshado said:


> I'm polyamorous and ideally would participate in a commune in person. I'm part of one digitally for now. That said, I only have one partner in person right now and I'm pretty selective.
> 
> Sex is lovely, but also a lot of work! Don't let the presence or lack of it define your life. Unless it's really important to you, then I suppose do what you want!



Nice to meet another poly btw. I’ve lost some friends (Not really friends after all) from mentioning I was poly, along with being told it’s unnatural and imoral, so while I’m not ashamed of it at all, I’m hesitant to talk about it considering the negative experiences I’ve been through. Still, it’s great to come across others like me.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 23, 2020)

I said not celibate, but that's because I've been in a monogamous relationship with my husband for about 21 years now.
Before that, when I was in my late tens / early 20's, I was fairly promiscuous. Especially at cons. Everyone seems way hornier and open to doing things at that age.
Before that, when I was in high school, I was involuntary celibate. I was a typical nerdy type - skinny, shy as hell, and not very good looking at the time, in part because I didn't care about how I looked. I had crushes on people, but was either too shy to ask, or got shot down whenever I did. I was nice and courteous and very respectful, since I was raised in "proper nobility" style by my parents, but the shyness and just being plain awkward got in the way.
I'm not a fan of the word "virgin." Both, because it has an unhealthy religious connotation that gives it some sort of special value that, if you lose it, it makes you less of a person. And because it's used as an insult (and was used against me plenty of times by overly macho bullies) were being a virgin somehow makes you less of a failure or that it's somehow entirely your fault. Involuntarily celibate at least suggests that it's not for lack of trying. I think that's sort of what ASTA was getting at?

If we were to legalize prostitution, I think it would solve a lot of the incel problems. Maybe. It's legal in Canada (at least Toronto). I wonder what their incel situation is like, or if it's even an issue?



Attaman said:


> I mean, it was nuked with the Politics section, but...
> 
> ASTA literally defended one of the Incel shooters with "His hand was forced, look at what your feminism and mocking of Incels has wrought" a few years ago.



Considering your well demonstrated propensity to take people's statements out of context and to outright make up claims about them, I don't believe you. And don't appreciate you trying to wedge personal attacks and flame war into what was otherwise a fairly calm discussion.


----------



## sshado (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Nice to meet another poly btw. I’ve lost some friends (Not really friends after all) from mentioning I was poly, along with being told it’s unnatural and imoral, so while I’m not ashamed of it at all, I’m hesitant to talk about it considering the negative experiences I’ve been through. Still, it’s great to come across others like me.



I'm sorry to hear you've been treated that way. I'm all too familiar with that sentiment unfortunately; it used to be one I shared in the past. I still have have a journal entry from years ago where I go on and on about how immoral and fake poly people are. It took time for me to undo the brainwashing I was raised with, but I'm much better off now for it. I'm always excited to meet others who share the same positive beliefs about being poly. Here's to hoping that society continues to accept that we are part of what is normal. The experience of losing friends or losing your community over it is just heartbreaking.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

sshado said:


> I'm sorry to hear you've been treated that way. I'm all too familiar with that sentiment unfortunately; it used to be one I shared in the past. I still have have a journal entry from years ago where I go on and on about how immoral and fake poly people are. It took time for me to undo the brainwashing I was raised with, but I'm much better off now for it. I'm always excited to meet others who share the same positive beliefs about being poly. Here's to hoping that society continues to accept that we are part of what is normal. The experience of losing friends or losing your community over it is just heartbreaking.


I don't see what's wrong with poly, if everyone consents and accepts of it, then it's perfectly fine.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

sshado said:


> I'm sorry to hear you've been treated that way. I'm all too familiar with that sentiment unfortunately; it used to be one I shared in the past. I still have have a journal entry from years ago where I go on and on about how immoral and fake poly people are. It took time for me to undo the brainwashing I was raised with, but I'm much better off now for it. I'm always excited to meet others who share the same positive beliefs about being poly. Here's to hoping that society continues to accept that we are part of what is normal. The experience of losing friends or losing your community over it is just heartbreaking.


I don’t understand why some people have such an issue with it tbh. Maybe religious reasons or something?. I get that it’s hard to understand, but still, the flak is unnecessary. It’s not like we have  an agenda to damage traditional American values and brainwash people and blah blah blah... You get the idea


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I don’t understand why some people have such an issue with it tbh. Maybe religious reasons or something?. I get that it’s hard to understand, but still, the flak is unnecessary. It’s not like we have  an agenda to damage traditional American values and brainwash people and blah blah blah... You get the idea


Here's a traditional monogamous person's viewpoint on poly people, long story short, flinging yourself about/ dating more than one person at a time can lead to jealousy, disgust, and hate.  I don't particular respect poly people, though it really depends on the person and how many people they have in the circle. 
Does this make sense..? 
Again, this is my viewpoint, it doesn't mean you, as a individual are a bad person and shouldn't exist. Just explaining what the negative feelings for polygamy are.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Here's a traditional monogamous person's viewpoint on poly people, long story short, flinging yourself about/ dating more than one person at a time can lead to jealousy, disgust, and hate.  I don't particular respect poly people, though it really depends on the person and how many people they have in the circle.
> Does this make sense..?
> Again, this is my viewpoint, it doesn't mean you, as a individual are a bad person and shouldn't exist. Just explaining what the negative feelings for polygamy are.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I don't particular respect poly people


You can not like an idea and still respect people who have that idea, you know.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> View attachment 91821


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> You can not like an idea and still respect people who have that idea, you know.


I don't respect the polygamy aspect.  Who said I didn't respect the person as a person..? A poly LEO, firefighter, president, store manager, Old person walking across the street with a lot of groceries,  etc.  Regardless of poly, I will always respect the individual at heart.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I don't respect the polygamy aspect.  Who said I didn't respect the person as a person..? A poly LEO, firefighter, president, store manager, Old person walking across the street with a lot of groceries,  etc.  Regardless of poly, I will always respect the individual at heart.


My bad. Saying things like "I don't particular respect poly people" tends to rub people the wrong way.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> My bad. Saying things like "I don't particular respect poly people" tends to rub people the wrong way.


Here's a bit of advice, keep in mind I'm not hating on people, I'm not hating on you, etc.  Though, please understand, the world as a whole doesn't care about a individual's feelings as a individual. That applies to everyone, me included.  If someone gets offended from something someone said, it's just a part of life. A fucked up part of life, but a part of life nonetheless.


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> I don't respect the polygamy aspect.  Who said I didn't respect the person as a person..? A poly LEO, firefighter, president, store manager, Old person walking across the street with a lot of groceries,  etc.  Regardless of poly, I will always respect the individual at heart.


"The gays? Yeah I love them, I just don't want them to kiss in front of me, you know? But they're great people otherwise."


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Here's a bit of advice, keep in mind I'm not hating on people, I'm not hating on you, etc.  Though, please understand, the world as a whole doesn't care about a individual's feelings as a individual. That applies to everyone, me included.  If someone gets offended from something someone said, it's just a part of life. A fucked up part of life, but a part of life nonetheless.


Here's another tip, that's not a great response to anything, really. 



ClumsyWitch said:


> "The gays? Yeah I love them, I just don't want them do kiss in front of me, you know? But they're great people otherwise."


Lmao


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

ClumsyWitch said:


> "The gays? Yeah I love them, I just don't want them do kiss in front of me, you know? But they're great people otherwise."


The fuck..? They do what they do to make themselves happy. I won't partake in polygamy myself. how the fuck do gay people have to do with me not liking the idea of a person dating more than one person at a time..?  Are you saying I hate gay people when I have two moms...?

Get fucked.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> The fuck..? They do what they do to make themselves happy. I won't partake in polygamy myself. how the fuck do gay people have to do with me not liking the idea of a person dating more than one person at a time..?  Are you saying I hate gay people when I have two moms...?
> 
> Get fucked.


...jesus. Take a break from your computer for a little while, you are just digging yourself into a hole.


----------



## sshado (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I don’t understand why some people have such an issue with it tbh. Maybe religious reasons or something?. I get that it’s hard to understand, but still, the flak is unnecessary. It’s not like we have  an agenda to damage traditional American values and brainwash people and blah blah blah... You get the idea



For me it was growing up in a conservative religious community, yes. In my experience the rest of the people who are against polyamory usually feel it rooted in a sense of insecurity. The concept of dating many people is honestly a threatening concept to the traditional monogamous worldview. Those people tend to consume a lot more traditional media as well which reinforces some negative social norms like being over-protective and glorifying traditional gender roles.

You're right, there's no agenda. It's just people who love each other and are comfortable expressing that and sharing that with more than one person at a time. There's nothing nefarious about it. 



Charleslr'93 said:


> Here's a traditional monogamous person's viewpoint on poly people, long story short, flinging yourself about/ dating more than one person at a time can lead to jealousy, disgust, and hate.  I don't particular respect poly people, though it really depends on the person and how many people they have in the circle.
> Does this make sense..?
> Again, this is my viewpoint, it doesn't mean you, as a individual are a bad person and shouldn't exist. Just explaining what the negative feelings for polygamy are.



Yes, I used to feel this way until I did some growing up and reflected on why I was treating people with so much disrespect for being poly. I urge you to reconsider the part about not respecting poly people. You can respect them without wanting to engage in it yourself. Just like how you would respect a gay person even if you are not gay. Just because they do something you don't like doesn't make them less deserving of respect from you.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

sshado said:


> For me it was growing up in a conservative religious community, yes. In my experience the rest of the people who are against polyamory usually feel it rooted in a sense of insecurity. The concept of dating many people is honestly a threatening concept to the traditional monogamous worldview. Those people tend to consume a lot more traditional media as well which reinforces some negative social norms like being over-protective and glorifying traditional gender roles.
> 
> You're right, there's no agenda. It's just people who love each other and are comfortable expressing that and sharing that with more than one person at a time. There's nothing nefarious about it.


People who think there's some sort of Gay agenda or Trans agenda or whatever agenda are the worst!


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm a pretty kinky and open-minded person, but given how my life has gone the idea of entering a poly relationship seems unrealistic. I have yet to meet a guy who is genuine and shares similar values. What are the chances I'm gonna meet five more that also happen to be into the idea of poly? XD

If y'all can balance/manage a poly relationship then by all means go for it! I'm sure it takes a lot of skill to ensure each partner is/remains content.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 23, 2020)

You know, if your issue with poly people is that they may go behind someone's back, your issue isn't with the poly, it's with the lying. If everyone in the relationship is fine with it, it's not a problem.


----------



## Charleslr'93 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> People who think there's some sort of Gay agenda or Trans agenda or whatever agenda are the worst!


Did I say you have some sort of agenda or its threatening to my life of being monogamous..? Are you helping me dig a hole here or are you genuinely just saying fuck haters? It's hard to tell.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Did I say you have some sort of agenda or its threatening to my life of being monogamous..? Are you helping me dig a hole here or are you genuinely just saying fuck haters? It's hard to tell.


Literally this post was not directed at you, the world does not revolve around you, calm your tits.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Oct 23, 2020)

In terms of the poll, not sure where I'd put myself.
Intercourse is pretty good and whiles understandably my BF is asexual so whiles I would want intercourse I am fully aware it's not something he's remotely interested in, granted he said in some cases he wouldn't mind just because he loves me and wants me to be happy as I do with him hence why I don't want to feel like I'm forcing him at times. But at same time I've recently been kinda getting uninterested in intercourse in general.

As for what's being discussed about poly relationships and such, as much as part of me is interested out of curiosity, I also know it will not work with me as based on how I am, I am very possessive of someone who I love and if in a poly relationship would likely cling to someone and get mad if someone tried to do anything with them.
In otherwords, it's MY boyfriend.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> People who think there's some sort of Gay agenda or Trans agenda or whatever agenda are the worst!


*Hides my sinister agenda to turn the US presidental candidates into gay femboy furries*


----------



## KimberVaile (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> *Hides my sinister agenda to turn the US presidental candidates into gay femboy furries*


Or just induct me as a candidate! Much better.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

KimberVaile said:


> Or just induct me as a candidate! Much better.


*Notices your foreign policy bill* OwO


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> *Hides my sinister agenda to turn the US presidental candidates into gay femboy furries*


(how does one sign up to that agenda, asking for a friend)


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Did I say you have some sort of agenda or its threatening to my life of being monogamous..? Are you helping me dig a hole here or are you genuinely just saying fuck haters? It's hard to tell.


You are digging one big hole dude. I'd just stop. You said verbatim "I don't particularly respect poly people" and said some really nasty things about them. Just let them live their lives dude.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> (how does one sign up to that agenda, asking for a friend)


I’ll make an exception. I need supplies for my plan. Bring me an hour long EDM mix tape, the first season of House Hunters, and 900MB of Zootopia fan art.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I’ll make an exception. I need supplies for my plan. Bring me an hour long EDM mix tape, the first season of House Hunters, and 900MB of Zootopia fan art.


*passes you a 1TB SSD full of art*
You didn't get this from me.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 23, 2020)

Also, I guess in some regards, I'm also poly, but when I reach that level of romantic partner/best friend, the line blurs for me.
I don't particularly find a difference between the two.
I can see why others do, for sure, but to me, there really isn't much there.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

Like as before, people are free to do what works for them. So long as no one's being hurt or left out or made to do things they don't want to, it's all good.

Whilst I'm monogamous, I won't crucify someone for being poly. That's just not cricket. Won't get into a relationship like that myself, but all the power to those who do and don't want to.

Also, my agenda is to make everybody wear leather by at least 2025. There is no use in fighting it. Give up now and I'll let you wear the good pants.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Like as before, people are free to do what works for them. So long as no one's being hurt or left out or made to do things they don't want to, it's all good.
> 
> Whilst I'm monogamous, I won't crucify someone for being poly. That's just not cricket. Won't get into a relationship like that myself, but all the power to those who do and don't want to.
> 
> Also, my agenda is to make everybody wear leather by at least 2025. There is no use in fighting it. Give up now and I'll let you wear the good pants.


Leather is for losers >:3


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Leather is for losers >:3


Looks like you're stuck wearing the ripped and bleached bomber jacket, then. See you in 2025...loser.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Like as before, people are free to do what works for them. So long as no one's being hurt or left out or made to do things they don't want to, it's all good.
> 
> Whilst I'm monogamous, I won't crucify someone for being poly. That's just not cricket. Won't get into a relationship like that myself, but all the power to those who do and don't want to.
> 
> Also, my agenda is to make everybody wear leather by at least 2025. There is no use in fighting it. Give up now and I'll let you wear the good pants.


Can I dress in leather like the road warrior?


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Looks like you're stuck wearing the ripped and bleached bomber jacket, then. See you in 2025...loser.


Nah. Leather will be eradicated by then.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 23, 2020)

I prefer some good latex, pvc, or vinyl, but leather is a close second


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Can I dress in leather like the road warrior?


Yes, you may. That is entirely permissible.



VeeStars said:


> Nah. Leather will be eradicated by then.


But bearskin will still be in. Damn honey-stealer.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Yes, you may. That is entirely permissible.
> 
> 
> But bearskin will still be in. Damn honey-stealer.


Good luck with that, tiny wolf.


----------



## zandelux (Oct 23, 2020)

Can I just wear nothing instead of wearing leather? Leather just seems like nudity but with extra steps.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 23, 2020)

Charleslr'93 said:


> Here's a traditional monogamous person's viewpoint on poly people, long story short, flinging yourself about/ dating more than one person at a time can lead to jealousy, disgust, and hate.  I don't particular respect poly people, though it really depends on the person and how many people they have in the circle.
> Does this make sense..?
> Again, this is my viewpoint, it doesn't mean you, as a individual are a bad person and shouldn't exist. Just explaining what the negative feelings for polygamy are.


I’ll be honest - I see way more mono people having jealousy issues in their relationships than poly people. To me, personally, the idea that falling in love with one person automatically diminishes or entirely cancels out the love you had for your previous partner is outlandish at best. I don’t ever want to be in a relationship where I feel pressured to choose whom I love “more” - love is not a finite resource or a zero sum game. I love my husband. I love my boyfriend. I love my not-in-a-formal-relationship partner. I may love them _differently_, but that doesn’t mean more or less.

It’s fine to not “get” polyamory. There’s plenty of dating practices that are a complete mystery to me. When you start thinking about it in judging terms (“flinging yourself about”), it’s time to consider why that’s your view of _any_ relationships. I’m 100% not saying poly relationships are superior, any more than they are inferior. Some people are more suited to one or the other, and some (probably relatively few) people can happily do either. 

I personally am _also_ in an open relationship, and have at least one lover whom I’m not romantically interested in. Because to me sex and love are loosely related at best. It’s like... I don’t need to own a dog to pet it, but if I do own a dog, petting it can certainly help build a relationship between us.



Rassah said:


> If we were to legalize prostitution, I think it would solve a lot of the incel problems. Maybe. It's legal in Canada (at least Toronto). I wonder what their incel situation is like, or if it's even an issue?


You probably don’t intend to, but what you’re defacto suggesting is that it’s acceptable for sex workers to be put at risk (the kind of people who would pose an “incel problem” are also liable to be dangerous clients) in order for the rest of us to feel a bit safer. I’m all for intimacy being available to people even if they can’t find a romantic partner, but not at the expense of sex workers’ safety.

(You may also want to read this thread, in regards to legalization.)


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 23, 2020)

Rassah said:


> If we were to legalize prostitution, I think it would solve a lot of the incel problems. Maybe. It's legal in Canada (at least Toronto). I wonder what their incel situation is like, or if it's even an issue?



In some cases, it might.

There are probably some who are just sexually frustrated, they aren't interested in a relationship, they would pay for sex if it was a legal option.

For others, they are well past that.  It's not just about wanting sex for them, it's about blaming women for every personal struggle they have.  They feel they are actually OWED or ENTITLED to sex simply by interacting with a woman, maybe complimenting her or "being nice."  I have met some who are incredibly angry at women to the point of wishing harm on them because they themselves have been rejected in the past.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> *Hides my sinister agenda to turn the US presidental candidates into gay femboy furries*












quoting_mungo said:


> You probably don’t intend to, but what you’re defacto suggesting is that it’s acceptable for sex workers to be put at risk



Didn't intend to and not what I'm suggesting.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

Rassah said:


> View attachment 91842View attachment 91843


Nani?!??!~??!


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Rassah said:


> View attachment 91842View attachment 91843


All according to plan


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> All according to plan


Next step is the fluffification >:3


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Next step is the fluffification >:3


Well, that’s easy, he’s already got the orange fox color, just needs to be covered in fur ^^


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 23, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Well, that’s easy, he’s already got the orange fox color, just needs to be covered in fur ^^


I thought he was a lizard man though?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 23, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I thought he was a lizard man though?


Fox or lizard, furry or scaly, which should we make him... gives me an idea for a thread poll >: )


----------



## Filter (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm voluntarily celibate. What I look for in a relationship can be hard to find.  I'm not talking about anything illegal or unreasonable. Just the combination of things that I like. Over the years, I've had people basically throw themselves at me, yet I've politely declined. I'm not unattractive, and neither are they. There's just too much of a mismatch.

Some might call me old fashioned, but my mind isn't. Would I rather be sexually active?  I suppose, but only in a situation that works for me. For now, an active imagination will have to suffice.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 24, 2020)

Involuntarily sexy.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 25, 2020)

Attaman said:


> ASTA literally defended one of the Incel shooters with "His hand was forced, look at what your feminism and mocking of Incels has wrought" a few years ago.



You took that post entirely out of context. If I had actually said that verbatim then I wouldn't be here on this forum posting right now due to violating rules 1.2, 2.6, and 2.7. _Everyone _on FAF would universally know me as that one user who openly defended a mass shooter unironically. No one would skip a beat reminding me of this, and I'm almost certain that at least four of you would have taken a screen capture of such an insidious post to repeatedly beat me over the head with on an almost daily basis. 

I'd bet big money that none of you can substantiate such a spicy claim. 



Attaman said:


> toxic masculinity



Claptrap shat out by the APA that completely ignores the biological and evolutionary explanations for various male psychological traits and is yet another anti-male sociology concept that no one takes seriously save for a grotesque hoard of overpaid two-bit left-leaning academics, miserable journalists, washed up feminists, and Twitter clout hustlers who contribute precisely 0 worth to modern civilization. The only men who even give this sort of garbage any due credence are the types of self-loathing dudes that you see infesting communal joints like r/MensLib.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Involuntarily celibate at least suggests that it's not for lack of trying. I think that's sort of what ASTA was getting at?



More or less. There are tons of men out there who legitimately put effort into the dating game yet they roll unlucky for a variety of reasons. Some are mentally disturbed, some are hideously ugly, and some are deformed. Other men are far too wrapped up their careers or academic studies to pursue relationships. I know men like this in real life.

Across human history, only about 40% of men reproduced whereas 80% of women did. Even if you were to account for disease, warfare, and the biological inability to sire children, it's _really _hard to suggest that the childless 60% went without mates due solely to the aforementioned factors. Life is about winning and losing. Some people, even when they try their hardest, still end up losing for one reason or another. A lot of incels tried and lost. It's a sad state of affairs for everyone involved and I wish there was a solution to this particular dilemma, but with how toxic the dialogue is between men and women nowadays I don't see this happening any time soon.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> You took that post entirely out of context. If I had actually said that verbatim then I wouldn't be here on this forum posting right now due to violating rules 1.2, 2.6, and 2.7. _Everyone _on FAF would universally know me as that one user who openly defended a mass shooter unironically. No one would skip a beat reminding me of this, and I'm almost certain that at least four of you would have taken a screen capture of such an insidious post to repeatedly beat me over the head with on an almost daily basis.
> 
> I'd bet big money that none of you can substantiate such a spicy claim.
> 
> ...


Toxic masculinity is a thing. Just because you're a male doesn't mean you can act like a prick. And like most males that I know aren't toxic. Most are awesome people. However that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, Trash Man.


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Across human history, only about 40% of men reproduced whereas 80% of women did.


This makes much sense, because unlike men, women are never mentally disturbed, never hideously ugly nor deformed. Logically none of them rather pursue careers or academic studies.
I can see where you're coming from.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 25, 2020)

I like where this thread has gone.






I know, more ass will save it!


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

I am both voluntarily and involuntarily celibate. Most of the time I don't want sex, and when I do, I'm too scared because I'm a virgin and stranger danger.


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Mr. Fox said:


> I know, more ass will save it!



Idk how to feel about this video. It's walking a fine line between "okay" and "cringe."


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

ClumsyWitch said:


> This makes much sense, because unlike men, women are never mentally disturbed, never hideously ugly nor deformed. Logically none of them rather pursue careers or academic studies.
> I can see where you're coming from.



Well from a biology standpoint females are the chooses and males are not.

To put it bluntly, even an ugly woman will have an easier time with mate selection than an ugly man.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2020)

I don't think it helps people lead happy lives to conceive of relationships as a 'game' that is about 'winning and losing',

It doesn't really help either to blame 'toxicity' between men and women on feminists.

I think it's actually that women (and other men if you swing that way! ;3) are alienated by somebody approaching love as if it's a computer game in which men are drones pursuing high scores.



Punji said:


> Well from a biology standpoint females are the chooses and males are not.
> 
> To put it bluntly, even an ugly woman will have an easier time with mate selection than an ugly man.



I'm not sure this is true in humans. Sex selection in humans is a lot more complicated. 
For starters in many animals males exhibit fancy colours and displays of fertility to impress selecting females. 
But in humans there is a big social pressure in most cultures on women to look young, beautiful, chaste and so on.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 25, 2020)

Chomby said:


> Idk how to feel about this video. It's walking a fine line between "okay" and "cringe."


 All The Single Furries takes the mantle for cringe.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> Well from a biology standpoint females are the chooses and males are not.
> 
> To put it bluntly, even an ugly woman will have an easier time with mate selection than an ugly man.


Where in the hell is that rule written?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Where in the hell is that rule written?



It's true in turkey birds and peacocks, but it's not true in humans, basically.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> It's true in turkey birds and peacocks, but it's not true in humans, basically.


I am going to cluck angrily at men who make moves on me now.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I am going to cluck angrily at men who make moves on me now.




If you want other romantic tips from turkey birds, remember to drag your knuckles on the ground behind you and to always take your infertile younger brothers with you on dates.


----------



## LameFox (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think it helps people lead happy lives to conceive of relationships as a 'game' that is about 'winning and losing',


Not the people who are doing it, anyway. The people it warns off probably live a little happier.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> If you want other romantic tips from turkey birds, remember to drag your knuckles on the ground behind you and to always take your infertile younger brothers with you on dates.


Educational humor is uncommon to me outside of the classes I took in school, so while it is slightly irrelevant to the thread to discuss bird behavior, I personally appreciate it.


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Hey I just wanna say to all my involuntary celibates: I love you. 
Can we get an F in the chat?    

Fr I sympathize your pain as a fellow virgin. *hugs*


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Smh. For the love of god never call yourself an incel just because you can't have sex. That word has such bad baggage. Just say I don't have sex because I don't have a partner. Otherwise you literally have the baggage of women hate and wanting legal rape attatched to you.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

If anyone thinks everyone hating incels is mean. Please look up incels . co. And for those who don't want to look it up, have this screenshot of the front page of the forums.


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Smh. For the love of god never call yourself an incel just because you can't have sex. That word has such bad baggage. Just say I don't have sex because I don't have a partner. Otherwise you literally have the baggage of women hate and wanting legal rape attatched to you.



I think "involuntary celibate" and "incel" are viewed differently.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Chomby said:


> I think "involuntary celibate" and "incel" are viewed differently.


No they are viewed the same. Incel is short for involuntary celibate. People who don't want to be a part of that community because they don't think women are trash just call themselves virgins or just say they don't have sex.


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> No they are viewed the same. Incel is short for involuntary celibate. People who don't want to be a part of that community because they don't think women are trash just call themselves virgins or just say they don't have sex.


I think it's bullshit how pieces of shit sexists have now claimed a general term that had no sexist meaning beforehand. I don't want to let them have it. Fuck them.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Chomby said:


> I think it's bullshit how pieces of shit sexists have now claimed a general term that had no sexist meaning beforehand. I don't want to let them have it. Fuck them.


Okay then. Firstly it was never a general term. But call yourself an incel and get hate that isn't deserved. Or just call yourself a virgin and go on with your life.


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Okay then. Firstly it was never a general term. But call yourself an incel and get hate that isn't deserved. Or just call yourself a virgin and go on with your life.


Well I don't get how it wasn't just a general term before all the bullshit. Some people have bad luck and that's okay as long as they aren't scumbags. You're telling me it's always been a toxic subculture? That's a disappointment.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2020)

The term 'incel' originated with a Canadian lesbian who used it as a joke about how hard it was to find other girls to date at university.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Chomby said:


> Well I don't get how it wasn't just a general term before all the bullshit. Some people have bad luck and that's okay as long as they aren't scumbags. You're telling me it's always been a toxic subculture? That's a disappointment.


Celibacy has been a term in use for a long time. Involuntary celibate has been a new thing. It's always been toxic. It rattles my brain how toxic they are. You know they don't even humanize females? They call us foids. Or femoids. It's fucked up and you really shouldn't even try to "take back the name" because it's a battle you won't win. And the good people will think you're just another bad guy.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> The term 'incel' originated with a Canadian lesbian who used it as a joke about how hard it was to find other girls to date at university.


She also said this about the name incel "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it."


----------



## Bababooey (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Celibacy has been a term in use for a long time. Involuntary celibate has been a new thing. It's always been toxic. It rattles my brain how toxic they are. You know they don't even humanize females? They call us foids. Or femoids. It's fucked up and you really shouldn't even try to "take back the name" because it's a battle you won't win. And the good people will think you're just another bad guy.


Real bummer. Guess I'll stick to "sad virgin" then. Lol


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> She also said this about the name incel "Like a scientist who invented something that ended up being a weapon of war, I can't uninvent this word, nor restrict it to the nicer people who need it."


That’s kind of the point being made by people differentiating between “incel” and “involuntarily celibate,” mind (provided I’m reading them right); there _are_ nicer people who could use a term for “in effect celibate, but wouldn’t be if I had the choice.” It’s hella shitty that what _could_ have been a supportive community of commiseration between people who just weren’t seeing success with their desired sex/gender, has turned into a bitter well of toxicity. Because sad as it is, not everyone is entering the dating scene on equal grounds. And that sucks. It’s not something we can really change, especially not in the short-medium term, but it is reality and it does us well to recognize that.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 25, 2020)

*Incels (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-selz), a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.[1][2][3] Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people*

The above is copied from Wikipedia, from this link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel

So now, let's look at this.

If you aren't finding a romantic or sexual partner, then I suggest two things: Get an escort or go on any 'dating' site. You'll find sex in a few minutes and might make a long-term partner from it.

The problem is not that sex isn't readily available. That's the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard. If you're a gay man...go to a sauna. You'll get laid. They even provide you with condoms, mate. Also, look at all these things below-

Go to a swinger's club. They exist.
Go on Grindr or Tinder. They exist.
Make friends with benefits. They exist.
Find a partner who is available to fit with your 'work schedule' or whatever bogus excuse you wanna come up with. They exist.

So...where's the issue in finding sex if they want it that badly? Their personalities, the terms they use, their behaviour and their belief that someone owes them sex. That's where the issues lie. Nobody likes a dickhead. If they wanted to get anywhere, they'd stop being dickheads.

I don't know why people in this thread keep trying to change the definition of incel. It's there in black and white.

If you can't find a partner because of your work schedule, make up a new term for it (even though I just demolished your argument that it's 'not possible' to find one). Don't use 'incel'. Don't associate yourself with them.

Also, 'virgin' does not mean the same thing as 'incel'. They are two entirely different things.
A 'virgin' is a person who has never had sex. This can be by their choice, through voluntary or conditional celibacy. So it's not like you can just replace 'incel' with 'virgin'.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 25, 2020)

I agree involuntary celibate, as in the new "incel" is more a construct of lack of options and/or lack of experience.

I also agree the original incel made sense, in 90s logic. It was 20ish years later we could marry and just be normal.  But for this poll, i think it is looking at the original context, that is wanting or desiring sex/intimacy but having a lack of options.

Could be someone put incel because they are in mid-Siberia or Antartica.


----------



## Izzy4895 (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Celibacy has been a term in use for a long time. Involuntary celibate has been a new thing. It's always been toxic. It rattles my brain how toxic they are. You know they don't even humanize females? They call us foids. Or femoids. It's fucked up and you really shouldn't even try to "take back the name" because it's a battle you won't win. And the good people will think you're just another bad guy.



Celibacy is also voluntary by its very nature, so “involuntarily celibate” makes no sense from a formal semantic viewpoint. And more importantly, as has been said above, who would want to be associated with neo-fascist wannabe rapists? “Taking it back”? One would have better luck “taking back” the “toothbrush mustache”.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Involuntary celibate has been a new thing. It's always been toxic. It rattles my brain how toxic they are. You know they don't even humanize females?



When I was involuntarily celibate in my late teens, due to my shyness and being generally viewed as an unattractive nerd in school, I didn't have that problem of not humanizing females. I respected both sexes equally, and had crushes on girls as well. So at best you're just making a generalization.
And as I mentioned, "virgin" was not any better off a word, since that word was very often used as an insult. I also tend to agree that incel is a slang that doesn't necessarily have the same making as involuntarily celibate.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> When I was involuntarily celibate in my late teens, due to my shyness and being generally viewed as an unattractive nerd in school, I didn't have that problem of not humanizing females. I respected both sexes equally, and had crushes on girls as well. So at best you're just making a generalization.
> And as I mentioned, "virgin" was not any better off a word, since that word was very often used as an insult. I also tend to agree that incel is a slang that doesn't necessarily have the same making as involuntarily celibate.


You clearly do not understand they are seen the exact same way.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

This is some fine thread derailment.
Mmhmm


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 25, 2020)

I believe we put too much into the negative of virgin and involuntary celibate and incel due to the Western perceptions of masculinity.  Which, unfortunately, drives easily into toxic masculinity, chauvinistic tendency, and other issues.  Toxic femininity, being a virgin, is actually an argument designed to denigrate women and falls into this.  So, I think it is our job as adults and role models to significantly reduce the stigma of the words "virgin" and "involuntary celibate".  

A math equation.  Take 100 people.  Gender is split 51 male to 49 female. 3 each will be LGBTQ+.  1 female will be lesbian/bi.  1 will be other tendencies.  Roughly the wame for guys.  Not the best conditions for finding love of your life, much less date gor a Friday night. This is involuntary celibate.  

Virgin is a partner is available, but the choice is to forego due to social, personal, moral, ethical, legal, or other system.  By CDC estimates, 12% women and 14% of men are virgins at age 24.  

So, the results are fairly consistent with trends.

Incel, as the post 90s block, takes the virgin algorithm and plants most of the reasoning for why people are virgins on women, as the overall predominate segment is men.  Which is strange, because of the aforementioned femcels. However, it evolved into hate because people think the LGBTQ+ community, typically lesbians, are the reason they cannot have sexual encounters with women.

I'm actually intrigued by the results, as it is generic and open ended.  Believe it or not, it is actually following a US trend.


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not sure this is true in humans. Sex selection in humans is a lot more complicated.
> For starters in many animals males exhibit fancy colours and displays of fertility to impress selecting females.
> But in humans there is a big social pressure in most cultures on women to look young, beautiful, chaste and so on.



I personally believe it is. For example, it's quite common knowledge that men are expected to be the one to make the first move, and the one to propose marriage. Women rarely ask men out directly, and rather tend to show interest through flirting or other sort of behaviour, but still expect men to pop the question.

In animals this is a lot more direct and observable, because at the end of the day most animals are only trying to reproduce. Females are the choosers because they're the ones who pay the biggest price on survivability. Bearing offspring costs a lot of energy and reduces mobility, and costs further energy to care for the young in animals which exhibit parenting behaviours.

Males, on the contrary, only have to pump-and-dump females to increase the odds of successfully passing down their genetic code. Thus, males have to show females their genes are worth the burden of pregnancy, as they usually bare no cost and are free to reproduce as much as possible.

People tend to think of themselves as above animals but the same still holds true: Men don't choose from a selection of women, women choose from a selection of men. We as humans may not have vibrant plumage or energy-expensive ornamentation, but we still base attraction off physical appearance and value the social success of potential partners in mate selection. Everyone wants the best for their child, and the partner with the highest paying job is more likely to have the means of providing for them.



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Where in the hell is that rule written?



Probably in most ecology textbooks.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> I don't think it helps people lead happy lives to conceive of relationships as a 'game' that is about 'winning and losing',
> 
> It doesn't really help either to blame 'toxicity' between men and women on feminists.
> 
> ...



Most of those cultures are dominated by monotheistic religion such as Christianity, Islam, etc. Those big gun religions have a lot to do with male power and women being forced into various unsavory roles (at the logical extreme they’re nothing more than pretty baby incubators). But that’s not PC so we don’t talk about that!


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> I personally believe it is. For example, it's quite common knowledge that men are expected to be the one to make the first move, and the one to propose marriage. Women rarely ask men out directly, and rather tend to show interest through flirting or other sort of behaviour, but still expect men to pop the question.
> 
> In animals this is a lot more direct and observable, because at the end of the day most animals are only trying to reproduce. Females are the choosers because they're the ones who pay the biggest price on survivability. Bearing offspring costs a lot of energy and reduces mobility, and costs further energy to care for the young in animals which exhibit parenting behaviours.
> 
> ...



You’re getting sociology and biology mixed up. While I think you’re accurate about physical attraction in the human, I don’t think men popping the question first is relevant because this is entirely a social thing. Women could just as easily pop the question instead of things were different (and they sometimes do). 

I do agree that men bars almost no responsibility in the overall child bearing picture, lol. But they can if they want to and they should!


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Most of those cultures are dominated by monotheistic religion such as Christianity, Islam, etc. Those big gun religions have a lot to do with male power and women being forced into various unsavory roles (at the logical extreme they’re nothing more than pretty baby incubators). But that’s not PC so we don’t talk about that!


So men are nothing more than lowly impregnators as well? Why the hell do you think it's okay to reduce women to "pretty baby incubators"?


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

It's 2020. We might not all have been born in the greatest generation ever, but we currently live in a day and age where we can choose to pursue relationships based purely on impulse/lust, looks or materials or just personalities. We can choose to live by traditions or old texts, or we can forge our own path. We can have babies or we can just live our best life before we pass away. We can choose to live by cultural/stereotypical trends or we can walk the harder path and be true to ourselves. Some get lucky. Some don't. You've got a few billion people that don't speak the same language as you and each with their own struggles in life.

((Technically there were individuals doing this long before 2020, but we're not in the stone age. We didn't just invent the wheel/agriculture and we didn't just lose 90% of our population to some kind of war.))

The web of life is far too complex to know which path you ought to take. You could do everything right and still have a piano fall on you in the end. Just do your best and keep an eye out for opportunity. Your patience will pay off (in some way) eventually.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You clearly do not understand they are seen the exact same way.



I feel like they do understand how it is viewed, but have the confidence and willingness to use the term correctly. 
Much like how a lot of people identify as Furry and Weeb despite all of the flack they deal with. 



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So men are nothing more than lowly impregnators as well? Why the hell do you think it's okay to reduce women to "pretty baby incubators"?



Pretty sure they were referring to said religions and some of their practices that still push/force a lot of women into these roles.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 25, 2020)

I see your conversation, and want to get back on topic.  As a woman, control of my body is paramount to me, so what if we account unwilling participation?
WARNING: Seriously trajic and dark data regarding rape accounting in spoilers.



Spoiler



Rape - using the 51/49 100 jelly beans

Males- 7 jelly beans of 51 would be virgins.  Of the 44 remaining, split one jelly bean in half and you have split it to all the men who would be virgin, given a choice.

Women- interestigly, also 7 jelly beans would be virgins.  However, move 11 more jelly beans over to account for rape, or women who would be virgins given a choice.


So, cool to be a virgin or have an orgy, just make sure you both consent.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 25, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> If you aren't finding a romantic or sexual partner, then I suggest two things: Get an escort or go on any 'dating' site. You'll find sex in a few minutes and might make a long-term partner from it.


In many or most western countries, “get an escort [if you want to get laid]” is akin to “if you’re hungry, go poaching.” Suggesting illegal activity as a solution to a social problem isn’t a very good solution. Not defending the criminalization of sex work, at all, just noting that the suggestion is flawed.

Denying the existence/experience of people who find themselves unable to find a sexual partner is, in general, not a good look. Several free dating sites closed with the passage of SESTA/FOSTA. It’s well documented that dating sites aren’t very rich waters for male users, especially if they’re not conventionally attractive. Your suggestions also rely on an individual having the social skills/confidence to actively pursue a physical relationship.

Now, none of this excuses the toxicity that breeds within the incel community. But that doesn’t mean that people outside it who are having trouble finding a partner don’t deserve sympathy. There’s no need to bear down on them like a ton of bricks and essentially suggesting that they’re just not trying hard enough because getting laid is _actually_ piss easy.


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> You’re getting sociology and biology mixed up. While I think you’re accurate about physical attraction in the human, I don’t think men popping the question first is relevant because this is entirely a social thing. Women could just as easily pop the question instead of things were different (and they sometimes do).
> 
> I do agree that men bars almost no responsibility in the overall child bearing picture, lol. But they can if they want to and they should!



I obviously disagree. While it's true that social cultures have an influence on it, biology is still the key anchor point. It's like food, in my opinion. Food is a significant cultural aspect with many social interactions based entirely around it, but it's anchored in our biological need to eat. The behaviours arise from the biological state, a constant across most if not all cultures.

In this capacity biology is still the anchor for reproduction/reproductive behaviours. Women can make the choice to make the first move, but they usually won't. This is where the sociology comes into play I think, with social norms building up over the anchor. Women making advances on men is a form of deviancy from the social norm, because it goes against a person's biology.

Men don't have to, but species with single-parent care see a lower percentage of infant mortality. Doubly so with dual-parent care.  But really men choosing to stay with the woman is where sociology really begins.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 25, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> In many or most western countries, “get an escort [if you want to get laid]” is akin to “if you’re hungry, go poaching.” Suggesting illegal activity as a solution to a social problem isn’t a very good solution. Not defending the criminalization of sex work, at all, just noting that the suggestion is flawed.
> 
> Denying the existence/experience of people who find themselves unable to find a sexual partner is, in general, not a good look. Several free dating sites closed with the passage of SESTA/FOSTA. It’s well documented that dating sites aren’t very rich waters for male users, especially if they’re not conventionally attractive. Your suggestions also rely on an individual having the social skills/confidence to actively pursue a physical relationship.
> 
> Now, none of this excuses the toxicity that breeds within the incel community. But that doesn’t mean that people outside it who are having trouble finding a partner don’t deserve sympathy. There’s no need to bear down on them like a ton of bricks and essentially suggesting that they’re just not trying hard enough because getting laid is _actually_ piss easy.


Shall we get this straight?

1. It's not illegal. Escort services are legal in that they aren't supposed to be for sex...but turns out that's what goes on behind closed doors. Also, people will turn to illegal forms of sex work if they want or have to. I'd rather have prostitution regulated by an actual legit firm than a pimp.

2. Since when was I coming down hard on people who legitimately have trouble finding a partner? Nowhere in there. I'm coming down on incels.

3. I clearly implied there is no excuse by default for incels and their behaviour.

4. I'm not denying the existence of anybody.

5. If incels have the 'social skills' to post on forums, breeding their own toxicity, they have the social skills to go on an actual dating site and get what they're after.

6. If people want support with social skills, they should seek that. No use in not seeking the help that you need.

7. Getting laid IS piss easy. I just explained several methods which incels could use to solve their own problem that are available not just to them, but to everybody. If the problem is 'I'm not having sex', then there's the answers. Clearly, there's more to it than just 'I'm not getting laid'.

8. It is not akin to 'if you're hungry, go poaching'. At the very least, I'm pointing to a legitimate business that is being exploited for sex. Go on the internet and tell me that's not what's happening. Poaching is illegal. Escort services are legal. Two completely different things that shouldn't be compared.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Shall we get this straight?
> 
> 1. It's not illegal. Escort services are legal in that they aren't supposed to be for sex...but turns out that's what goes on behind closed doors. Also, people will turn to illegal forms of sex work if they want or have to. I'd rather have prostitution regulated by an actual legit firm than a pimp.
> 
> ...



To add to the discussion: getting laid IS easy! 
Finding and nurturing a relationship to the point of romance/meeting all of your conditions, is not. <XD


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> To add to the discussion: getting laid IS easy!
> Finding and nurturing a relationship to the point of romance/meeting all of your conditions, is not. <XD


Well, yes. But at the same time, that links into personality/behaviour.
I know what you mean, though. Hence the dating sites option.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Well, yes. But at the same time, that links into personality/behaviour.
> I know what you mean, though. Hence the dating sites option.



Yuuuuuuuuup. I kept overhearing people talking about Tinder and how some people are clicking right away and getting married. I figured maybe a lot of the nasty reviews were just people overhyping things and gave it a look. 

Firstly, no one in my area matched any of my filters so I initially had 0 results. So when I played around with it just to see, 90% of them were ads from a couple looking to have a 3 way. Or Swingers. Or just anything and everything. 

Everything but friends/acquaintances. 8[ 
Deleted that pretty quick.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> I obviously disagree. While it's true that social cultures have an influence on it, biology is still the key anchor point. It's like food, in my opinion. Food is a significant cultural aspect with many social interactions based entirely around it, but it's anchored in our biological need to eat. The behaviours arise from the biological state, a constant across most if not all cultures.
> 
> In this capacity biology is still the anchor for reproduction/reproductive behaviours. Women can make the choice to make the first move, but they usually won't. This is where the sociology comes into play I think, with social norms building up over the anchor. Women making advances on men is a form of deviancy from the social norm, because it goes against a person's biology.
> 
> Men don't have to, but species with single-parent care see a lower percentage of infant mortality. Doubly so with dual-parent care.  But really men choosing to stay with the woman is where sociology really begins.



I don’t know about the last part - species with single parent care. I’d like to see some stats and I’ll also go look it up because it’s interesting. 

However women advancing on men vs men advancing on women has nothing to do with biology *except* that men are *more likely* do advance first because they’re horny. But the idea that men should advance first is so deeply embedded in our society that people think it’s biological. It’s fascinating that you think it is, because that shows how deeply rooted that idea is. (Key point being that it’s an idea, a sociological artifact, not a a fact.) 



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> So men are nothing more than lowly impregnators as well? Why the hell do you think it's okay to reduce women to "pretty baby incubators"?



...is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you being deliberately obtuse? I can never tell with you people.


----------



## MrSpookyBoots (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> To add to the discussion: getting laid IS easy!
> Finding and nurturing a relationship to the point of romance/meeting all of your conditions, is not. <XD


*THIS. *Sex is easy to find if you're looking for it hard enough. Finding someone you want to spend the rest of your life with who reciprocates those feelings is a much taller order.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Yuuuuuuuuup. I kept overhearing people talking about Tinder and how some people are clicking right away and getting married. I figured maybe a lot of the nasty reviews were just people overhyping things and gave it a look.
> 
> Firstly, no one in my area matched any of my filters so I initially had 0 results. So when I played around with it just to see, 90% of them were ads from a couple looking to have a 3 way. Or Swingers. Or just anything and everything.
> 
> ...


Well, Tinder does have that culture.
I meant more sort of Match.com...if that's out there in the US. Probably a lot more than just Match.

I hear they're a lot more mature and have more people looking for actual relationships. Also, just getting out and meeting people (when the pandemic's not a thing) is also out there.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I don’t know about the last part - species with single parent care. I’d like to see some stats and I’ll also go look it up because it’s interesting.
> 
> However women advancing on men vs men advancing on women has nothing to do with biology *except* that men are *more likely* do advance first because they’re horny. But the idea that men should advance first is so deeply embedded in our society that people think it’s biological. It’s fascinating that you think it is, because that shows how deeply rooted that idea is. (Key point being that it’s an idea, a sociological artifact, not a a fact.)
> 
> ...is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you being deliberately obtuse? I can never tell with you people.



Women can be just as horny as men too. And it's funny because a lot of us would ask to engage way more often if we weren't called a slut or a whore for having the confidence or '_nerve_' to do so.

I feel like comparing human brains to the brains of other animals is kind of weird. Like... we're not penguins looking for pebbles, we're humans. Just because other animals do it doesn't necessarily mean we have to. Some people hold up a radio over their head and sing a song to impress their lovers. Others might craft something for them. Some animals sing and some animals craft too. It helps that we can live so comfortably and have access to all of these resources.

I feel like there are enough people alive (including myself) to prove that this isn't biological in the slightest. People just invented these traditions because it's probably all they had (story-telling, religion, etc). Otherwise the unity of two individuals would be the same throughout all human history and its many cultures.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> You clearly do not understand they are seen the exact same way.



I wonder if they're seen the same way due to some people having internalized prejudices? Obviously I don't see them the same, and some others here don't either.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 25, 2020)

Tips for those wishing to get a solid pick-up.

1) open ended questions.  Learn a little something and keep conversations light, interesting, and relevant.  Nothing ending in a definitive answer, because the mood sours.

2) Guys, girls doesn't matter.  You are in a mathemagic game of chance between Daphne, Velma, and that girl over by the trash can looking for the exit and being intimidated by Daphne herself.  Everyone knows something about either Daphne and Velma.  Go for the awkward girl by the door! Always, always, always.  She's looking for a good time, too.  But everyone wants in Daphne's pants and many will enter, one will win.  Velma is with Daphne and everyone wants to give her action to TALK to Daphne.  Who is going with Daphne?  Likely, NOT YOU! It's that guy/gal Velma introduced to Daphne, not Fred and not Shaggy.  Fred is a bouncer before Velma because Daphne is out of you league.  The awkward girl you discounted?  She's Velma's girl.  Treat her nice, she'll be your type or get you to Velma.  Treat Velma and her like the princesses they are, you get an audience with Daphne, the queen.

3) We like being laid as much as you, but we're cerebral.  So bring the big boy brain!  If I'm on her side, my b.s.-o-meter is on high sensitivity.  If I'm on yours, then for f's sake, you have two b.s.-o-meters going, so let it play out.  Be cool.  

4) OMG, if you get back to the place, under sell and over deliver!  You ain't Ron Jeremy. Instant straight girl turnoff when you talk like an anime character or play it off like Bruce Wayne, Julie Strain, Stormy Daniels, or Ron Jeremy.  Cerebral.  And for God's sake, no means no.  When we're ready, and you are cool and we're up to it, it's as good for us as you.

Does it work?  Not always, but I did eventually marry so worked for me.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Most of those cultures are dominated by monotheistic religion such as Christianity, Islam, etc. Those big gun religions have a lot to do with male power and women being forced into various unsavory roles (at the logical extreme they’re nothing more than pretty baby incubators). But that’s not PC so we don’t talk about that!



I remember it being the same case in atheist USSR where religion was outlawed, and I think it's still the case in China where religion is likewise pretty... low. So I think it's a case of religion reflecting society, rather than society being influenced by religion. I agree with the other guy that it has more to do with biology, genetics, and evolution.



TyraWadman said:


> .
> 
> I feel like there are enough people alive (including myself) to prove that this isn't biological in the slightest. People just invented these traditions because it's probably all they had (story-telling, religion, etc). Otherwise the unity of two individuals would be the same throughout all human history and its many cultures.





I think there's a very simple test that anyone can do to figure out how much of this sex thing is biological and how much of it is cultural. Look at the things that are taboo in culture, which exist kind of under the radar. Specifically, count the number of hentai movies that are geared towards men vs women. And to go deeper, count the number of hentai that focuses on taboo topics like domination, tentacles, or rape that is marketed towards men vs women. I can't think of how to explain that difference in any other way than that male brains are wired differently from female ones, and that males are more dominant, more sexual, and perhaps more sexually frustrated at not being able to get a partner than females.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Women can be just as horny as men too. And it's funny because a lot of us would ask to engage way more often if we weren't called a slut or a whore for having the confidence or '_nerve_' to do so.
> 
> I feel like comparing human brains to the brains of other animals is kind of weird. Like... we're not penguins looking for pebbles, we're humans. Just because other animals do it doesn't necessarily mean we have to. Some people hold up a radio over their head and sing a song to impress their lovers. Others might craft something for them. Some animals sing and some animals craft too. It helps that we can live so comfortably and have access to all of these resources.
> 
> I feel like there are enough people alive (including myself) to prove that this isn't biological in the slightest. People just invented these traditions because it's probably all they had (story-telling, religion, etc). Otherwise the unity of two individuals would be the same throughout all human history and its many cultures.



Yes that’s a very good point. Humans are very complicated social creatures. We are technically a species of animal but the depths to which our social complexity reaches is virtually unparalleled. There are some animals with intricate social structures however, such as dolphins.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> I think there's a very simple test that anyone can do to figure out how much of this sex thing is biological and how much of it is cultural. Look at the things that are taboo in culture, which exist kind of under the radar. Specifically, count the number of hentai movies that are geared towards men vs women. And to go deeper, count the number of hentai that focuses on taboo topics like domination, tentacles, or rape. I can't think of how to explain that difference in any other way than that make brains are wired differently from female ones, and that males are more dominant, more sexual, and perhaps more sexually frustrated at not being able to get a partner than females.



That just sounds ridiculous. XD 

Do you know how much porn is out there that women are into? How many women go on top or dominate their male partners? Believe me, you'd see a lot more crazy shit too if women could have the opportunity to create all kinds of freaky shit. But they usually don't because most men in power were born and bred to believe that women couldn't be seen as an equal (or other obvious outside influences like they just weren't as skilled as the male candidate, etc). We don't even live in an age where women can have sex or sell their bodies without being shamed for it. If dudes wanted sex so badly, they would have no reason to shame them into silence. There are way too many contradictions here!

Our bodies are different, yes. Testosterone levels do influence aggression levels for sure, but this really just sounds like an excuse for a guy to say 'I can't help my actions, my testosterone levels made me do it'. *OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER HERE*, not all women are rays of sunshine X_X but I feel like the reason most women 'deal' easier, is because they're constantly battling the emotions they get whenever they have their periods. Moodiness, suicidal thoughts, weakness, and they're not expected to slow down. We have to adapt because we learn the world around us doesn't stop to give us time. But again, that is because the majority of us live in a society that promotes this. Not because we biologically _need_ to.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> I'd bet big money that none of you can substantiate such a spicy claim.


 I mean, I've said it before (in the last totally-not-Politics) thread and I'll say it again: @Dragoneer , @SSJ3Mewtwo , @luffy , @Scrydan , et al. These people - unless 'Neer wiped the data from the servers outright during the update, or it was lost as collateral - should _*all*_ be able to dig back into the archived politics section and slap down a moderator action against me _pretty damn quickly_ if I'm found to be twisting words maliciously. If you have such firm recollection of the instance in question, you can even probably point them towards the specific post! Slander against users is generally pretty firm grounds for at least temporary bans / infractions, what with basically dumping fuel and lighting a match.



ASTA said:


> Claptrap shat out by the APA


 I'd like people to consider for a moment that the rebuttal / counter to the *APA *publishing on the existence of Toxic / Traditional Masculinity... is to say *the entire organization is wrong, perpetrating clap-trap, and has no idea what they're talking about. *For reference, the APA is the _American Psychiatric Association, _which is the _largest Psychiatric organization in the world_ with a sum of ~38,000 members, and is responsible for more scholarly journals and thesis on the matter than one can shake a stick at (and this isn't just a result of them being around / accredited for well over a century).

I strongly encourage people to think on a matter when one's rebuttal to such is "fucking claptrap anti-male sociology".


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> That just sounds ridiculous. XD
> 
> Do you know how much porn is out there that women are into? How many women go on top or dominate their male partners? Believe me, you'd see a lot more crazy shit too if women could have the opportunity to create all kinds of freaky shit. But they usually don't because most men in power were born and bred to believe that women couldn't be seen as an equal (or other obvious outside influences like they just weren't as skilled as the male candidate, etc). We don't even live in an age where women can have sex or sell their bodies without being shamed for it. If dudes wanted sex so badly, they would have no reason to shame them into silence. There are way too many contradictions here!
> 
> Our bodies are different, yes. Testosterone levels do influence aggression levels for sure, but this really just sounds like an excuse for a guy to say 'I can't help my actions, my testosterone levels made me do it'. *OBVIOUS DISCLAIMER HERE*, not all women are rays of sunshine X_X but I feel like the reason most women 'deal' easier, is because they're constantly battling the emotions they get whenever they have their periods. Moodiness, suicidal thoughts, weakness, and they're not expected to slow down. We have to adapt because we learn the world around us doesn't stop to give us time. But again, that is because the majority of us live in a society that promotes this. Not because we biologically _need_ to.



First of all, thank you for replying to a statement of fact without immediately accusing me of being a representative of this fact and claiming that I'm into those things and am dangerous rapist and should be banned (like some other person on this forum tends to do. Like the guy above my post. Who literally "twisted words maliciously" and accused me of all this. And despite "slander against users being generally pretty firm grounds for at least temporary bans," had nothing happen to him. Probably because mods were very obviously playing favorites). I do feel like it's necessary to point out that I'm not into that kind of porn, nor have any interest in that topic other than for academic purposes.

That said, the reason I brought that up is in part because it's already taboo. It already goes against social norms. And a lot of these movies are made in underground studios almost anonymously. If women have interest in that too, meaning there is a market for it and money to be made, I'm wondering why there isn't an underground market to make these for women as well? Though I suspect a lot of gay hentai (yaoi?) may be made by and for women and some of it is a bit... risque too.


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I don’t know about the last part - species with single parent care. I’d like to see some stats and I’ll also go look it up because it’s interesting.
> 
> However women advancing on men vs men advancing on women has nothing to do with biology *except* that men are *more likely* do advance first because they’re horny. But the idea that men should advance first is so deeply embedded in our society that people think it’s biological. It’s fascinating that you think it is, because that shows how deeply rooted that idea is. (Key point being that it’s an idea, a sociological artifact, not a a fact.)



I was just making a biology joke.   About R & K species. Basically just the old "pumping out huge amounts of offspring and abandoning them right away" verses the "raise one to three offspring at a time." It is interesting though, I think. I can't say how this applies to humans because that's not anything I ever bothered to look for, was just a joke about animals.

Well the thing is with regards to frequency women might as well never approach men compared to the rate at which men approach women. It's a biological fact that males are much more capable of repeated mating. Males can go all day every day but females tend to have windows of time where they're sexually active. This generally applies with humans.

I feel like we're starting to loop here. You're stating it's a social phenomenon, I'm stating it's biological. Females choose, and in every species where the female chooses males are the ones trying for her attention, not the inverse. The only times males ever act as the choosers is when they bare the children, such as with seahorses. Human males aren't really linked to their offspring and therefore don't choose their mates as strictly, hence they will approach women first.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> I wonder if they're seen the same way due to some people having internalized prejudices? Obviously I don't see them the same, and some others here don't either.


The only reason why people here went right along with the idea that that is okay is that this thread was started under the assumption that the name was normal.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> I remember it being the same case in atheist USSR where religion was outlawed, and I think it's still the case in China where religion is likewise pretty... low. So I think it's a case of religion reflecting society, rather than society being influenced by religion. I agree with the other guy that it has more to do with biology, genetics, and evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is tentacle domination rape porn even taboo


Punji said:


> I was just making a biology joke.   About R & K species. Basically just the old "pumping out huge amounts of offspring and abandoning them right away" verses the "raise one to three offspring at a time." It is interesting though, I think. I can't say how this applies to humans because that's not anything I ever bothered to look for, was just a joke about animals.
> 
> Well the thing is with regards to frequency women might as well never approach men compared to the rate at which men approach women. It's a biological fact that males are much more capable of repeated mating. Males can go all day every day but females tend to have windows of time where they're sexually active. This generally applies with humans.
> 
> I feel like we're starting to loop here. You're stating it's a social phenomenon, I'm stating it's biological. Females choose, and in every species where the female chooses males are the ones trying for her attention, not the inverse. The only times males ever act as the choosers is when they bare the children, such as with seahorses. Human males aren't really linked to their offspring and therefore don't choose their mates as strictly, hence they will approach women first.



Well I think you are looking at the whole picture and saying it’s biological, while thinking I am doing the same and saying it’s sociological. 

The reality i think is we can’t do that, there are so many moving parts, and it’s going to vary from culture to culture and person to person as to make makes them tick and why they do things. There’s sexual attraction at the basic biological level but there are also often desires to build a family, maybe desires to impress people with awesome kids, maybe a deep desire for companionship - that might even supersede basic biological sexual desires, because the social aspect is also evolved over countless years and is deeply embedded in the behavior of every human.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> The reality i think is we can’t do that, there are so many moving parts, and it’s going to vary from culture to culture and person to person as to make makes them tick and why they do things. There’s sexual attraction at the basic biological level but there are also often desires to build a family, maybe desires to impress people with awesome kids, maybe a deep desire for companionship - that might even supersede basic biological sexual desires, because the social aspect is also evolved over countless years and is deeply embedded in the behavior of every human.


True, but for the majority of people, the same things apply.
Women tend to be preferred with large hips, breasts, and soft features and they generally signify strong genes, mothering potential, and a lesser chance to die during childbirth.
In men, it's musculature and other strong features since they signify strong genes for the children to obtain and increase their survivability in harsh situations.

The ability to get along is also important, but rarely do you see animals who pair for life divorce due to domestic disputes. It's easier for them, I assume, due to simpler brains, but it's still a quality we share with them on a fundamental level.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> True, but for the majority of people, the same things apply.
> Women tend to be preferred with large hips, breasts, and soft features and they generally signify strong genes, mothering potential, and a lesser chance to die during childbirth.
> In men, it's musculature and other strong features since they signify strong genes for the children to obtain and increase their survivability in harsh situations.
> 
> The ability to get along is also important, but rarely do you see animals who pair for life divorce due to domestic disputes. It's easier for them, I assume, due to simpler brains, but it's still a quality we share with them on a fundamental level.



Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The precise things which men find attractive are subject to change from culture to culture, generation to generation, and person to person. 









						What Men Find Attractive In Different Parts Of The World - The List
					

They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but not every man finds the same woman beautiful.




					www.thelist.com


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> First of all, thank you for replying to a statement of fact without immediately accusing me of being a representative of this fact and claiming that I'm into those things and am dangerous rapist and should be banned (like some other person on this forum tends to do. Like the guy above my post. Who literally "twisted words maliciously" and accused me of all this. And despite "slander against users being generally pretty firm grounds for at least temporary bans," had nothing happen to him. Probably because mods were very obviously playing favorites). I do feel like it's necessary to point out that I'm not into that kind of porn, nor have any interest in that topic other than for academic purposes.
> 
> That said, the reason I brought that up is in part because it's already taboo. It already goes against social norms. And a lot of these movies are made in underground studios almost anonymously. If women have interest in that too, meaning there is a market for it and money to be made, I'm wondering why there isn't an underground market to make these for women as well? Though I suspect a lot of gay hentai (yaoi?) may be made by and for women and some of it is a bit... risque too.




Of course! There's all kinds of shit out there and I'm certainly not into it all despite knowing of it's existence. x~x 

One of the biggest reasons why I think women don't generally get into it as much, is because of the risk. The people you end up working with might not be the most professional/nicest. More often than not, women end up being abused or directors are unfaithfully and hook them up with men that have STIs and STDs. I have come across more sexual abuse stories from women currently in the industry, and most of them won't offer the female actress a lot of money because they know someone else will be dumb enough to do it (which doubles back to my previous statement in regards to equality). 

The ones that ARE reasonable/responsible, generally don't seem to be interested in the spookier themes in the first place. OR the women with the means and money to get into said business, don't want to be reduced to a sleaze by the general public.  It can be a dramatic change to their life the minute they commit to it, especially if they're working within some kind of religious community. DX 



Spoiler



I'm a nobody now, but give me a _small loan of 1million dollars_ and I'd reinvent the porn-making industry. And expand on sex toys. Because customization/variety is key. >B)

But that'll probably never happen because am poor and I can't even get an adequate student loan to pursue a higher education. :') 

I know that Yaoi is super popular... but I don't get _why_. Part of the appeal of the fantasy for me, is to be involved, or to imagine myself being involved in some sort of way. That doesn't really work when... _you know._ Maybe they're just into voyeurism?


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> I personally believe it is. For example, it's quite common knowledge that men are expected to be the one to make the first move, and the one to propose marriage. Women rarely ask men out directly, and rather tend to show interest through flirting or other sort of behaviour, but still expect men to pop the question.
> 
> In animals this is a lot more direct and observable, because at the end of the day most animals are only trying to reproduce. Females are the choosers because they're the ones who pay the biggest price on survivability. Bearing offspring costs a lot of energy and reduces mobility, and costs further energy to care for the young in animals which exhibit parenting behaviours.
> 
> ...



If men are expected to ask women out, are they not playing an active role in picking partners?

Do you think this is compatible with the idea that men are not selective?

Indeed some scientists have argued that preferences for longer hair in women, differences in male and female height, and the evolution of hair and eye colour, are adaptations that were driven by _male_ sexual selection as a result of high male mortality in humans.

So I just want to emphasise that, just because an idea is cynical and harsh, doesn't make it scientifically truer. There really isn't any grounds to believe human mate selection is all one-sided.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The precise things which men find attractive are subject to change from culture to culture, generation to generation, and person to person.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's why I said majority.
There are certain things most people are hardwired to like, but because we're aware of our own consciousnesses, we are able to easier overwrite that stuff (or, as you've stated, have society overwrite it for us)

And then there's alternative sexualities that exist both in humans and animals, but those too are hardware related, just less common, and not subject to what we're talking about.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> So I just want to emphasise that, just because an idea is cynical and harsh, doesn't make it scientifically truer. There really isn't any grounds to believe human mate selection is all one-sided.


While I’m sure there are species in which mate selection _is_ entirely one-sided, we do see examples of selective sexual behavior in both sexes in other species, as well. A mare will happily kick the snot out of a stallion she doesn’t care for, but there are stallions that won’t cover mares of certain colors, for instance, as well.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

How this thread feels with the guys telling women how they work.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> How this thread feels with the guys telling women how they work.


hahaha!


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> If men are expected to ask women out, are they not playing an active role in picking partners?
> 
> Do you think this is compatible with the idea that men are not selective?
> 
> ...



Of course they are. But they aren't creating a pairing, they're suggesting one. The woman is still choosing and the men are still trying to be chosen.

Everyone has standards, that's not the point. Men will pursue less desirable women and the women will still be choosing the men. The absolute top of the males will simply have all the females, because they'll choose the apparent best.

I don't mention this because it's cynical, I mention it because it's the truth. Nothing is entirely one-sided when it requires a union, but the choice heavily favours the female. It's really not a difficult behaviour to observe. In a marriage, who gets which ring? The women generally gets a diamond ring and the man gets a plain band. The diamond is a show of economic strength, of his ability to provide. We humans may not have plumage, but we do have some ways of wasting energy to show we have a lot of it.

Men aren't given fancy rings, because they are the ones who must prove their worth to the female. It's not any different just because we're human.

And I feel like I might have to point this out, but I don't have a horse in this race. As I said in the OP, I consider myself voluntarily celibate, and to be blunt if I had to choose a partner I'd probably look for another male instead. I don't give this argument because of personal feelings on the matter, I give it because it's an easily observable behavioural pattern.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> That's why I said majority.
> There are certain things most people are hardwired to like, but because we're aware of our own consciousnesses, we are able to easier overwrite that stuff (or, as you've stated, have society overwrite it for us)
> 
> And then there's alternative sexualities that exist both in humans and animals, but those too are hardware related, just less common, and not subject to what we're talking about.



They’re not? Why not? I think human sexuality is much more malleable and fluid than most people would have us believe.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> They’re not? Why not? I think human sexuality is much more malleable and fluid than most people would have us believe.


Because we're talking majority here.
Majority are straight and are wired to be attracted to the things I've listed because it's wired into our reptile brains.
Some people can choose to go against that out of necessity and settle with someone they find less physically attractive for numerous reasons, but still.
This is the majority.
Only 4.5% of people in the United States, for example, identify as LGBT, thus making them a minority and not the topic of what I'm talking about.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> The women generally gets a diamond ring and the man gets a plain band. The diamond is a show of economic strength, of his ability to provide. We humans may not have plumage, but we do have some ways of wasting energy to show we have a lot of it.
> 
> Men aren't given fancy rings, because they are the ones who must prove their worth to the female. It's not any different just because we're human.


That's purely a social tradition, though. It's not human instinct.

There have also been traditions where a woman's father offered a dowry, to encourage men to marry their daughters.  It's basically a bribe, and has nothing to do with attraction between the man or woman.  Same goes for other forms of "arranged" marriage.

Fortunately, we live in an age where these things are not necessary, and where making babies is an optional part of a relationship - not its ultimate purpose.  That makes it possible to find partners based on mutual interests and respect, not just "who can provide for babies" or "does she have child-bearing hips"


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 25, 2020)

MaelstromEyre said:


> That's purely a social tradition, though. It's not human instinct.
> 
> There have also been traditions where a woman's father offered a dowry, to encourage men to marry their daughters.  It's basically a bribe, and has nothing to do with attraction between the man or woman.  Same goes for other forms of "arranged" marriage.
> 
> Fortunately, we live in an age where these things are not necessary, and where making babies is an optional part of a relationship - not its ultimate purpose.  That makes it possible to find partners based on mutual interests and respect, not just "who can provide for babies" or "does she have child-bearing hips"


Yeah, not everyone chooses entirely on looks, I'd rather spend my time with someone that is "ugly" but really sweet than someone who is "hot" but a big asshole.


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

MaelstromEyre said:


> That's purely a social tradition, though. It's not human instinct.
> 
> There have also been traditions where a woman's father offered a dowry, to encourage men to marry their daughters.  It's basically a bribe, and has nothing to do with attraction between the man or woman.  Same goes for other forms of "arranged" marriage.
> 
> Fortunately, we live in an age where these things are not necessary, and where making babies is an optional part of a relationship - not its ultimate purpose.  That makes it possible to find partners based on mutual interests and respect, not just "who can provide for babies" or "does she have child-bearing hips"



A social tradition which is derived from inherent behaviours. It's not human instinct as much as it's just the natural path. Females can't reproduce at the rate as males, so males must compete for who will be the mate. In non-ideal situations such as life in the distant past people can't choose love over necessity, and therefore must choose the best suited partner for survival. That is, assuming it's _not_ actually just instinct as is observed in so many other species.

But even now, who wouldn't prefer their partners to be wealthy all else being equal? Wealth shows the person is able to provide for their family. Humans are driven by hormones, as much as people don't like to admit it. Attraction is based on reproduction even if that's not possible or the main goal.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Because we're talking majority here.
> Majority are straight and are wired to be attracted to the things I've listed because it's wired into our reptile brains.
> Some people can choose to go against that out of necessity and settle with someone they find less physically attractive for numerous reasons, but still.
> This is the majority.
> Only 4.5% of people in the United States, for example, identify as LGBT, thus making them a minority and not the topic of what I'm talking about.



Does majority matter? Do we know it’s different wiring for attraction when it’s a gay guy vs a woman? Gay guys sometimes like guys who look effeminate I’ve noticed, and maybe gay women like masculine women (I haven’t asked them tho). 

Focusing on the majority is easy but I think that leaves out a lot. Human sexuality and attraction is complex and messy but also I think simple in a way - people like what they like. That can be both individual tastes, cultural tastes, and “biological” tastes. (Are we sure there’s things that most people are biologically attracted to in the opposite genders? I bet science is still figuring that out. Now I need to do more research.)


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Does majority matter? Do we know it’s different wiring for attraction when it’s a gay guy vs a woman? Gay guys sometimes like guys who look effeminate I’ve noticed, and maybe gay women like masculine women (I haven’t asked them tho).
> 
> Focusing on the majority is easy but I think that leaves out a lot. Human sexuality and attraction is complex and messy but also I think simple in a way - people like what they like. That can be both individual tastes, cultural tastes, and “biological” tastes. (Are we sure there’s things that most people are biologically attracted to in the opposite genders? I bet science is still figuring that out. Now I need to do more research.)


Well gay guys also like traditionally more masculine men, and gay girls also like traditionally more feminine women, just saying.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Does majority matter? Do we know it’s different wiring for attraction when it’s a gay guy vs a woman? Gay guys sometimes like guys who look effeminate I’ve noticed, and maybe gay women like masculine women (I haven’t asked them tho).
> 
> Focusing on the majority is easy but I think that leaves out a lot. Human sexuality and attraction is complex and messy but also I think simple in a way - people like what they like. That can be both individual tastes, cultural tastes, and “biological” tastes. (Are we sure there’s things that most people are biologically attracted to in the opposite genders? I bet science is still figuring that out. Now I need to do more research.)


Majority does indeed matter, especially since the largest minority is a heavy outlier to the data is sitting at 4.5% as previously stated.
In most scientific study, a 4.5% data outlier is low enough to be completely thrown out.

Of course, I know this deals with people and some people might not feel GOOD, but that doesn't really matter here.
I exist within that 4.5% outlier and I'm perfectly fine carrying this conversation on despite my own self interest.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

WoMan R bABy MaKErS


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> WoMan R bABy MaKErS


I don't understand women.

How are they so awesome??? :O


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> WoMan R bABy MaKErS



Now I see why you've been banned from so many Discord servers.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Now I see why you've been banned from so many Discord servers.


That's all these people are saying. _over and over again_


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> That's all these people are saying. _over and over again_


Nobody is saying that.
Stop strawmanning.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 25, 2020)

Punji said:


> A social tradition which is derived from inherent behaviours. It's not human instinct as much as it's just the natural path. Females can't reproduce at the rate as males, so males must compete for who will be the mate. In non-ideal situations such as life in the distant past people can't choose love over necessity, and therefore must choose the best suited partner for survival. That is, assuming it's _not_ actually just instinct as is observed in so many other species.
> 
> But even now, who wouldn't prefer their partners to be wealthy all else being equal? Wealth shows the person is able to provide for their family. Humans are driven by hormones, as much as people don't like to admit it. Attraction is based on reproduction even if that's not possible or the main goal.


That's assuming a person's reason for finding a partner is specifically to reproduce.

There are many of us who do not want children.  We have other criteria for choosing partners, and in some cases we may entirely reject an interested person because they want to have children, and we do not.

There's some truth to wanting a partner who is able to "provide" - though it's not just about wanting someone "rich."  It's about having a partner who is responsible, who is able to maintain their own living space without looking like a pigsty, able to feed themselves without living on take-out or instant meals all the time, able to pay their bills and do their laundry.

When I was single, one of the biggest "turn offs" for me were the momma's boys.  The guys who had no "life skills" at all, because "mom" had always done it for them.  They couldn't cook, they lived in horribly filthy apartments, some still lived at home and expected to not move out until they got married - because they figured their new wife would just take over and do all the things for them that "mom" had always done.  A few of them did end up snagging women who thought they'd "grow up" and start acting like independent adults.  I've seen some of them on Facebook - they're divorced now.  

In general, when actually looking for a partner, instead of having a list of things you want in a partner, sometimes it's helpful to look at yourself and consider what YOU have to offer as a partner.  People who sit around and mope and pout about all the reasons they think they're single often don't realize that it's the self-hate that is the biggest turn-off.  It's just not fun being around someone who hates themselves, or who relies on other people to build them up all the time.  

What's worse is when they become bitter, and blame others for not being interested in them.  They feel that they are "owed" attention because they were nice to someone, that they are entitled to a relationship - or, at least sex - because they paid someone a compliment or did something nice for them.  They don't understand that the person they're attracted to owes them NOTHING. And they cannot handle the disappointment.

Everyone has their own preferences for what they want in a partner.  Not everyone is going to be appealing to one person, and that person certainly isn't going to be appealing to everyone.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

As much as there truly are people who do not wish to reproduce, myself included, said people are still generally going to be attracted to features that would be looked in for in a good mate regardless.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Nobody is saying that.
> Stop strawmanning.


I should quote everytime someone said "child bearing hips" in this thread.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I should quote everytime someone said "child bearing hips" in this thread.



It's another way to describe wide hips, and has been used as such for a very long time. 
I am pear shape and I'm not offended by this.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I should quote everytime someone said "child bearing hips" in this thread.


There's a difference between having 'child-bearing hips' and actually having the desire to have a baby pushed out of them.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Majority does indeed matter, especially since the largest minority is a heavy outlier to the data is sitting at 4.5% as previously stated.
> In most scientific study, a 4.5% data outlier is low enough to be completely thrown out.
> 
> Of course, I know this deals with people and some people might not feel GOOD, but that doesn't really matter here.
> I exist within that 4.5% outlier and I'm perfectly fine carrying this conversation on despite my own self interest.



No, 4.5% is statistically significant. Not sure what stats class you took buddy  

Not really sure what point you are trying to make now. Sorry.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> No, 4.5% is statistically significant. Not sure what stats class you took buddy
> 
> Not really sure what point you are trying to make now. Sorry.


*shrug*



Toby_Morpheus said:


> There's a difference between having 'child-bearing hips' and actually having the desire to have a baby pushed out of them.


To add, I like feminine men. There's a decent amount of them who wear clothing to make their hips look more pronounced. Some wear hip pads. Some even get surgery to have additions placed on their hip bones.
Transgender women do this sort of thing, too.
They obtain the appearance of 'child-bearing hips' even though they're incapable of having children because wide hips are a mark of beauty beyond their functionality.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Of course! There's all kinds of shit out there and I'm certainly not into it all despite knowing of it's existence. x~x
> 
> One of the biggest reasons why I think women don't generally get into it as much, is because of the risk. The people you end up working with might not be the most professional/nicest. More often than not, women end up being abused or directors are unfaithfully and hook them up with men that have STIs and STDs. I have come across more sexual abuse stories from women currently in the industry, and most of them won't offer the female actress a lot of money because they know someone else will be dumb enough to do it (which doubles back to my previous statement in regards to equality).
> 
> ...



I was talking about women creating the animation, where they write, direct, and voice the story. What were you talking about?


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> That's all these people are saying. _over and over again_



Your problem, I suspect, is that the implications that are being wrought from this discussion (those being that human behavior isn't exclusively shaped by sociological mechanisms and inputs but also _heavily _by biological ones) are offending your particular outlook on how gender works. 

No one is saying that women are good for anything else but producing offspring, but much like how men possess a sizable host of psychological and physiological traits that render them more intuitively adept at traditionally masculine roles, women are biologically formatted to primarily excel at traditionally feminine ones.

Honestly, your response to this topic and some of the behavior that I've witnessed so far from other users in this thread is what I mean whenever I say that FAF is _packed _full of people who have little to no IRL experience outside of their own individual social and online communal spaces. You have people in here who are seemingly struggling to properly dissociate their own relationship or mating preferences from the validity of the established human mean. 

They literally cannot understand that they are the exception and not the rule.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> How this thread feels with the guys telling women how they work.



Ironic this being posted from someone telling men how they work (with the incel thing)



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> I should quote everytime someone said "child bearing hips" in this thread.



I admit, I find child bearing hips very attractive. On guys. Specifically femboys.

But, back on topic of this conversation, if there's anything TV taught me, it's that it is much more likely for a woman to pick a successful okay looking guy over a handsome poor slob, and that it's not uncommon for a man to pick a very attractive woman who is otherwise useless whom they are willing to support ("trophy wife" I think is the term?). But that's just TV. I don't really know any better.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Ironic this being posted from someone telling men how they work (with the incel thing)


Saying there is such thing as toxic masculinity does not mean I'm saying all men are toxic and act that way. Where as you guys are doing wide spread generalizing on all women.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Your problem, I suspect, is that the implications that are being wrought from this discussion (those being that human behavior isn't exclusively shaped by sociological mechanisms and inputs but also _heavily _by biological ones) are offending your particular outlook on how gender works.
> 
> No one is saying that women are good for anything else but producing offspring, but much like how men possess a sizable host of psychological and physiological traits that render them more intuitively adept at traditionally masculine roles, women are biologically formatted to primarily excel at traditionally feminine ones.
> 
> ...



Science has a very hard time discerning what exactly men are physiologically more attuned to vs women. There’s so much social programming heaped on everyone in society, who knows what behaviors people would adopt if they were placed in a social vacuum?

Actually we already have the answer, which is that gender norms fade away to almost nothing in a primitive setting, and evidence suggests that pre-agricultural revolution tribes were very gender equal. This whole idea that men and women are biologically wired for different behaviors is a fallacy to a point.

(Except that men usually are the violent offenders. That one is basically universal.)


----------



## Punji (Oct 25, 2020)

Hopefully it's just my imagination, but I feel like I'm picking up some sour notes in this thread. Perhaps it bares repeating that we're only discussing the reasons contributing to celibacy, whether voluntary or otherwise. This thread isn't about "toxic masculinity/femininity" nor is it meant to just treat people like sexual objects or "baby machines." Let's all try not to get carried away or take offense where none was meant.



MaelstromEyre said:


> That's assuming a person's reason for finding a partner is specifically to reproduce.
> 
> There are many of us who do not want children.  We have other criteria for choosing partners, and in some cases we may entirely reject an interested person because they want to have children, and we do not.
> 
> ...



I don't think that's assuming that, no. As I said, hormones are what drives us, regardless of intent for procreation. Love and attraction don't require reproduction but they're all linked.

Wealth is just a form of providing for one's family, true. But it's an easily recognized factor and can lead to just about anything else short of emotional attachment, and is an extremely important part of society.

I think the rest of this is the human element, where survival is less of a question than it is for animals. However, finding a partner is not going to be based on his or her ability to keep a living space clean or cook properly, it's still going to be surface level things until more depth is appropriate. But if someone approaches another person his or her physical or apparent traits are what will spark interest, not underlying factors like how clean each person keeps their house. These things will absolutely impact long-term relationships, but it does not build them from scratch.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

I mean
There are studies








						The 'Perfect' Body Type: Exploring The Origins Of America's Obsession
					

What is the perfect body type for a woman? Have you ever thought about that notion? Many people don't really think about this, but media and culture discuss it all the time. Turn on your television, watch a movie or even read about fashion from the…




					www.elitedaily.com


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

ASTA said:


> Now I see why you've been banned from so many Discord servers.



Legend has it that whenever someone says “Ovi” on a discoed server the system automatically bans 10 random people.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Saying there is such thing as toxic masculinity does not mean I'm saying all men are toxic and act that way. Where as you guys are doing wide spread generalizing on all women.




Please take what you said, apply some empathy, and try to understand that that's what we're saying. When we say guys are attracted to body shapes like wider hips, which are actually colloquially called "childbearing hips," it doesn't mean we think all women are just for bearing children. You're actively looking to be offended when no one is being offensive.



SwiftDog said:


> Science has a very hard time discerning what exactly men are physiologically more attuned to vs women. There’s so much social programming heaped on everyone in society, who knows what behaviors people would adopt if they were placed in a social vacuum?
> 
> Actually we already have the answer, which is that gender norms fade away to almost nothing in a primitive setting, and evidence suggests that pre-agricultural revolution tribes were very gender equal. This whole idea that men and women are biologically wired for different behaviors is a fallacy to a point.
> 
> (Except that men usually are the violent offenders. That one is basically universal.)



What about hormones? Physical strength differences? Stamina differences? Having lactating breasts that allow one to care for children while the other uses their strength and stamina to chase down food and protect the tribe?


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Please take what you said, apply some empathy, and try to understand that that's what we're saying. When we say guys are attracted to body shapes like wider hips, which are actually colloquially called "childbearing hips," it doesn't mean we think all women are just for bearing children. You're actively looking to be offended when no one is being offensive.


Sure. It's not like you guys are saying all this stuff is ingrained in women.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Sure. It's not like you guys are saying all this stuff is ingrained in women.


Both men and women have reptile brains, you know.
The majority of both are at the whim to said brains on what they find attractive in a partner.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 25, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Sure. It's not like you guys are saying all this stuff is ingrained in women.



Yes, we are saying that some physical and psychological things are ingrained in women, just like some physical and psychological things are ingrained in men. Why, is that controversial?


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Please take what you said, apply some empathy, and try to understand that that's what we're saying. When we say guys are attracted to body shapes like wider hips, which are actually colloquially called "childbearing hips," it doesn't mean we think all women are just for bearing children. You're actively looking to be offended when no one is being offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> What about hormones? Physical strength differences? Stamina differences? Having lactating breasts that allow one to care for children while the other uses their strength and stamina to chase down food and protect the tribe?



Here’s an interesting article to add to the conversation. It essentially props up both of our arguments. 





__





						The Science Behind Why We Find Certain People Attractive | mindbodygreen
					

Why are we attracted to certain kinds of people? Here's what the science can tell us about who we're attracted to, why, and how to change it.




					www.mindbodygreen.com


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Yes, we are saying that some physical and psychological things are ingrained in women, just like some physical and psychological things are ingrained in men. Why, is that controversial?



Everyone knows women are more emotional and flighty than men! It’s just in their biology. 

Boys will be boys! It’s just in their biology. 

Do you see why your statement, taken at face value, isn’t very helpful?


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

I'm really confused by all of this. I'm not really bashing anyone for being voluntary/involuntary. I do believe there are factors that could cause someone to be involuntary. I'm literally living in the middle of nowhere and the age group seems to be either twice my age or 10+years under. Apps are pretty much unable to detect my location and even when they do, no one else here uses said apps. Unless I happen to stroll into that one coffee shop one day and bump into the right dude, I'm stumped-- especially since I don't even drink coffee in the first place! 

It can definitely be a lot of work. Hell, I'm out to make friends but I get shot down like I'm some creep hiding in their kitchen cupboards. People are mostly on the prowl for sex nowadays so a dude will reject someone purely because the wouldn't want to have sex with them. Same can be said for women of course. I have tried to keep a lot of open avenues, but I quickly learned (in regards to social/dating sites) anyone lurking on there, has probably been lurking there for *years *and it's because they have something wrong with them. To me, 90% of them were males living off of disability for anxiety. Not PTSD, not abuse, not something physically impairing... but because _talking_ to _people _gives them _anxiety_. I have been jobless so I know what it's like to live off of very little. I wouldn't bash them for not having a job, but I'm not one of those women that feel the need to save everyone. I'm not going to waste my time talking to someone who already knows they have problems, and will abuse me in the end. 


But I don't think biology has anything to do with it. Centuries of grooming, perhaps. If one were to closely examine their ancestors and their heritages, methinks a lot of us would spawn from groups that shaped men into being a dominant figure. I can understand the biological need to survive, but again, we no longer live in the age where we get our houses torched the minute the sun goes down (mostly). Birth only gives you a chance to ensure the survival of a race, not necessarily yourself (un...unless you eat it afterwards). And if you don't value that, then what does having a child matter? Which leads me to believe it is nothing more than an itch someone wants to scratch, and I can understand the frustration of not being able to scratch, but I have learned a long time ago that it doesn't mean I take it out on everyone else. 

I have wide hips, a set of breasts and an _immaculate_ libido. Why don't I have Chad's lined up at my door, trying to impress me with their flexing and beer kegs?  




Rassah said:


> I was talking about women creating the animation, where they write, direct, and voice the story. What were you talking about?



Oh. I was talking about real life porn market. XD And while I'm remembering, I've seen just as much 'submissive/oblivious male' hentai as I've seen the other non-consenting/dominant stuff.  So to me, this doesn't give me a biological impression, but rather appealing to the fantasy of 'if only it were that easy'. Which... leads to the darker part about 'incels' not liking the word 'no' for an answer. Or people just not realizing that relationship building takes work and dedication, otherwise you're better of paying for a cheap fling.

Returning to the animation, I'm fairly certain Japanese women are typically seen as second class. Even though I've never had the intention of working/hosting my own animation studio EVER, people have told me I'd be better off being (essentially) a ghost writer for a male. Or have a male publish my work so that it can be taken seriously. Whether or not that's still an issue, I'm not 100% sure because I learned that years ago. 

I'd still be all over it if I had the time and resources. You can always tell when something is catered towards a stereotypical male, hetero audience. <:/


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Here’s an interesting article to add to the conversation. It essentially props up both of our arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Culture is indeed a factor. Humans are the only animals (that we know of) who have such a deep and varying societies.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Returning to the animation, I'm fairly certain Japanese women are typically seen as second class. Even though I've never had the intention of working/hosting my own animation studio EVER, people have told me I'd be better off being (essentially) a ghost writer for a male. Or have a male publish my work so that it can be taken seriously. Whether or not that's still an issue, I'm not 100% sure because I learned that years ago.


Japan does indeed still have some moderate male/female equality issues. I can verify that as a quasi-Japanophile


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 25, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Here’s an interesting article to add to the conversation. It essentially props up both of our arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmmmmmmmm. There's uhhhh...
There's some really weird stuff in here. Like... who volunteered to smell their dad's sweat and then go "yea, I prefer the guy that smells more like my dad". Um. What? XD It might invoke feelings that might be nostalgic, but I certainly wouldn't be _attracted_ to it like _that._

Plus, I saw a disclaimer saying it was studied in America/with White people?

Either way, I find for me, it's difficult to assess as a biological response. Especially when the things I'm attracted to aren't 'sparked' right away. When I hear something that makes me think they have a potential, I perk up because they've piqued my interest- but again, that's not because of the smell or sight of them, but something they said or did.

TRIGGER WARNING


Spoiler


----------



## Filter (Oct 25, 2020)

MaelstromEyre said:


> That's purely a social tradition, though. It's not human instinct.
> 
> There have also been traditions where a woman's father offered a dowry, to encourage men to marry their daughters.  It's basically a bribe, and has nothing to do with attraction between the man or woman.  Same goes for other forms of "arranged" marriage.


Delaying marriage for financial reasons is a thing, and I wonder if that might have had something to do with the popularity of dowries.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> TRIGGER WARNING
> 
> 
> Spoiler


mmmmm this sets off my technosexuality something fierce ;V


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 25, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Hmmmmmmmmm. There's uhhhh...
> There's some really weird stuff in here. Like... who volunteered to smell their dad's sweat and then go "yea, I prefer the guy that smells more like my dad". Um. What? XD It might invoke feelings that might be nostalgic, but I certainly wouldn't be _attracted_ to it like _that._
> 
> Plus, I saw a disclaimer saying it was studied in America/with White people?
> ...



Pheromone responses to someone aren’t something we are going to notice consciously. So of course it sounds weird to be attracted to someone because they smelled like your dad. Basically, the familiar is more likely to attract you.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

I will say that the majority of the "Involuntary Celibates" aren't truly involuntary in their celibacy as many have a terribly toxic attitude and are massive [REDACTED(s)].


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> I will say that the majority of the "Involuntary Celibates" aren't truly involuntary in their celibacy as many have a terribly toxic attitude and are massive [REDACTED(s)].



Half of them are probably actually gay anyway. They’d be much happier with some schlong instead of pussy.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Half of them are probably actually gay anyway. They’d be much happier with some schlong instead of pussy.


See, this is the science I'm interested in ;DDDDDDDDD


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Half of them are probably actually gay anyway. They’d be much happier with some schlong instead of pussy.


I don't know whether to be offended or roll on floor laughing so I am doing both xD


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Pheromone responses to someone aren’t something we are going to notice consciously. So of course it sounds weird to be attracted to someone because they smelled like your dad. Basically, the familiar is more likely to attract you.



A lot of people do seem to find comfort in what is familiar: race, political stances, etc.

Which only confirms that *mortals* are *weak* and will only take the path of least resistance.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I don't know whether to be offended or roll on floor laughing so I am doing both xD


Why be offended if you arent sure?
Just laugh at it and enjoy the absurdity


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Why be offended if you arent sure?
> Just laugh at it and enjoy the absurdity


It's late and I am doing HW I procrastinated on


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> I don't know whether to be offended or roll on floor laughing so I am doing both xD



Lol that works.


TyraWadman said:


> A lot of people do seem to find comfort in what is familiar: race, political stances, etc.
> 
> Which only confirms that *mortals* are *weak* and will only take the path of least resistance.



Exactly! Uh, us deities are much more willing to go outside the norm! Yeah.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> It's late and I am doing HW I procrastinated on


Hey
Get off the computer and finish your work


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Hey
> Get off the computer and finish your work


My HW is HTML related so that's super productive lol.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> My HW is HTML related so that's super productive lol.


Get off the board then :|


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Get off the board then :|


Im sitting on a chair, not a board.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> A lot of people do seem to find comfort in what is familiar: race, political stances, etc.
> 
> Which only confirms that *mortals* are *weak* and will only take the path of least resistance.



Lol to speak on this in a more serious note would you bed and form relations with someone who's particular political party they vote for is a proponent that tries to legislate your erasure legally?

Like I am T4T because on average I have rather unfavorable experiences with cis individuals like them getting real upitty and upset with me about my own identity which is one of numerous things I don't get from my fellows.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Lol to speak on this in a more serious note would you bed and form relations with someone who's particular political party they vote for is a proponent that tries to legislate your erasure legally?
> 
> Like I am T4T because on average I have rather unfavorable experiences with cis individuals like them getting real upitty and upset with me about my own identity which is one of numerous things I don't get from my fellows.



Well of course not!

 But from what I understand not every political party is out to erase everyone. At least, here in Canada, they all promise the exact same things. It's just trying to determine which one you think is actually gonna follow through on their promises. Luckily none of them involve undoing LGBTQ rights. :/


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Well of course not!
> 
> But from what I understand not every political party is out to erase everyone. At least, here in Canada, they all promise the exact same things. It's just trying to determine which one you think is actually gonna follow through on their promises. Luckily none of them involve undoing LGBTQ rights. :/



Sadly not the case in America, and without getting too overtly political by naming names, there is one particular major party that is rather aggressive in its activity against another certain demographic.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Lol to speak on this in a more serious note would you bed and form relations with someone who's particular political party they vote for is a proponent that tries to legislate your erasure legally?
> 
> Like I am T4T because on average I have rather unfavorable experiences with cis individuals like them getting real upitty and upset with me about my own identity which is one of numerous things I don't get from my fellows.



Identity politics tend to annoy any sane person :v


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Lol that works.
> 
> 
> Exactly! Uh, us deities are much more willing to go outside the norm! Yeah.



_*Pinches you by the fur and places you on my shoulder* _


Spoiler



*Come, little one. We will form our bonds through battle- and only when we find our equals, will we be sated. *
*Banjo-Kazooie music plays*




​


​


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Identity politics tend to annoy any sane person :v


there isnt anything political about my identity. What is political is a certain American party or other nation parties trying to attack me and others like me for said identity.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

What even is identity politics? I hear a lot of people who tend to lean to the right throw it out a lot.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Lol to speak on this in a more serious note would you bed and form relations with someone who's particular political party they vote for is a proponent that tries to legislate your erasure legally?


Pretty much marriage right there.  But seriously, it's about talking it over as a responsible adult.  People are people and with love, you can love them for their faults.  If it doesn't work, leave.  But I understand this is exceptionally difficult as a hang up, especially with American politics.  Want smaller government and fiscal responsibilty then accept the bad as a compromise and work the system.  They get out of hand, vote the other party into power.



LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Like I am T4T because on average I have rather unfavorable experiences with cis individuals like them getting real upitty and upset with me about my own identity which is one of numerous things I don't get from my fellows.


Gee, thanks.  Seriously, though i get it.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> What even is identity politics? I hear a lot of people who tend to lean to the right throw it out a lot.


Its the concept that if you belong to a subsect of society that a political faction expects you to vote a certain way.
/end politics


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> _*Pinches you by the fur and places you on my shoulder* _
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



I like where this is going. Can I be small, annoying and snarky yet surprisingly likeable, like the raccoon from the avengers?


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> What even is identity politics? I hear a lot of people who tend to lean to the right throw it out a lot.


Identity politics is a you are either us or not.  And if you aren't us, you don't matter.  Think Trump and his removing blue states for coronavirus.

Right is more socially accepting and believe all are equal without regard.  However, extreme right dips into this sentiment as well.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Gee, thanks.  Seriously, though i get it.


It is really nothing against the Cis it is more so that I have been burned before and had rather unsavory experiences with hooking up and yeah...


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I like where this is going. Can I be small, annoying and snarky yet surprisingly likeable, like the raccoon from the avengers?



Omg yes. XD 
I'm a scary death-bringer of sorts trying to figure out love/why I can't get laid and you're all like '_well it helps when they're not dead_'. 
It's totally_ relatable_!


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> Omg yes. XD
> I'm a scary death-bringer of sorts trying to figure out love/why I can't get laid and you're all like '_well it helps when they're not dead_'.
> It's totally_ relatable_!



Lol! Well I mean unless the undead are your thing. I won’t judge!


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Lol! Well I mean unless the undead are your thing. I won’t judge!


Can the undead consent tho?
Guess it depends on how undead lol


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Can the undead consent tho?
> Guess it depends on how undead lol


The undead says "Brainzzz!" I think that means no.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Identity politics is a you are either us or not.  And if you aren't us, you don't matter.  Think Trump and his removing blue states for coronavirus.
> 
> Right is more socially accepting and believe all are equal without regard.  However, extreme right dips into this sentiment as well.


Ah, so basically tribalism, us vs them type stuff :/


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Ah, so basically tribalism, us vs them type stuff :/


Yup


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Skittles said:


> Yup


Not good


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Lol! Well I mean unless the undead are your thing. I won’t judge!


I might, because, you know - zombie apocalypse.



LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> It is really nothing against the Cis it is more so that I have been burned before and had rather unsavory experiences with hooking up and yeah...


Welp, I'm happily married and monogamous so there's that...


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Not good


It's generally based on factors like skin color, sexuality, social status, etc etc.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Lol! Well I mean unless the undead are your thing. I won’t judge!



 _Hmmmmmmmmmmm._

But hey, I didn't mean to derail anything. 
Hmu if you ever get any ideas. I might make some doodles if I can ever come up with an armor concept I like first.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Everyone knows women are more emotional and flighty than men! It’s just in their biology.
> 
> Boys will be boys! It’s just in their biology.
> 
> Do you see why your statement, taken at face value, isn’t very helpful?



Well, when you put it in a way that I didn't say or imply, yeah, I guess.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> It's generally based on factors like skin color, sexuality, social status, etc etc.


Even more not good


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Even more not good


Yeah, i agree.

This is making me reflect on my pre-life decisions to be human.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Even more not good


Usually a "call" from more right leaning entities though like the white nationalist types more often than not as they're the ones who are much more volatile and toxic with idpol BS as part of their cry.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Yeah, i agree.
> 
> This is making me reflect on my pre-life decisions to be human.


I'd probably be happier as an emergent AI lol


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Its the concept that if you belong to a subsect of society that a political faction expects you to vote a certain way.
> /end politics


Well of course you'll vote for people who aren't trying to erase you.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Usually a "call" from more right leaning entities though like the white nationalist types more often than not as they're the ones who are much more volatile and toxic with idpol BS as part of their cry.


Right, left... can we call the a-holes a-holes and agree to such?


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Well of course you'll vote for people who aren't trying to erase you.


Only person gonna erase me is myself
I mean... on my own terms 
Not gonna alt+f4
Dont... call anyone pls. Im good lol


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Right, left... can we call the a-holes a-holes and agree to such?  I really want to get back to trolling them.


I mean yeah I am just saying the entire idpol BS is a tactic predominantly used by more right leaning stains like white nationalist groups.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

> I will say that the majority of the "Involuntary Celibates" aren't truly involuntary in their celibacy as many have a terribly toxic attitude and are massive [REDACTED(s)].



Kind of a sweeping generalization to make against men there. I'm hoping our society treats this idea as being just as sexist as the idea that women who are too sexually active are sluts.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Kind of a sweeping generalization to make against men there. I'm hoping our society treats this idea as being just as sexist as the idea that women who are too sexually active are sluts.


Thing is two distinct differences being sexually active does not make one a toxic individual nor does it impact upon others like would be partners.

But to not be able to 'get some strange' because of a toxic attitude and being a [REDACTED] is something that will impact others directly and drive them away from you and cause you to be voluntarily celibate for choosing to be that toxic individual.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

That still doesn't mean the "majority of involuntarily celibate are" such and such. The majority could be awkward nerds. Society used to pick on them and call them virgins. Now it looks dangerously close to picking on them and calling them incels, but with the added "oh, they're misogynistic, oh and fascists and white supremacists too, so it's okay." Far as I know, there isn't actually any real studies on who people who are involuntarily celibate are. Just maybe a few vocal types, but we don't know if they represent the majority. And if we only listened to the vocal minority, we'd conclude that a lot of fandoms, organizations, and groups are pretty hateful and toxic.
And, can we keep the politics off? I'm trying.

Instead, here's a question, is this still celibacy since the other partner isn't alive, and is this consent?


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Identity politics is a you are either us or not.  And if you aren't us, you don't matter.  Think Trump and his removing blue states for coronavirus.
> 
> Right is more socially accepting and believe all are equal without regard.  However, extreme right dips into this sentiment as well.



Right wing are not socially accepting


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> That still doesn't mean the "majority of involuntarily celibate are" such and such. The majority could be awkward nerds. Society used to pick on them and call them virgins. Now it looks dangerously close to picking on them and calling them incels, but with the added "oh, they're misogynistic, oh and fascists and white supremacists too, so it's okay." Far as I know, there isn't actually any real studies on who people who are involuntarily celibate are. Just maybe a few vocal types, but we don't know if they represent the majority.
> And, can we keep the politics off? I'm trying.
> 
> Instead, here's a question, is this still celibacy since the other partner isn't alive, and is this consent?
> View attachment 92035


Have you ever even looked at an incel forum? Look up incel . co and tell us what you find.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Right wing are not socially accepting



They didn't used to be. Most are now.
/end politics



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Have you ever even looked at an incel forum? Look up incel . co and tell us what you find.



Like I said, if I were to look at a furry forum, I would conclude that furries are the most perverted, toxic, and drama seeking people on the planet.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Right wing are not socially accepting


Sorry, screwed up my right and left.  Never ask me directions without a GPS.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

They both hot trash


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> They both hot trash


Watch out everybody we have an enlightened centrist in here


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Sorry, screwed up my right and left.  Never ask me directions without a GPS.



Okay thank you


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Watch out everybody we have an enlightened centrist in here


*takes your obvious sarcasm as a compliment anyways*
Thanks ;D


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> *takes your obvious sarcasm as a compliment anyways*
> Thanks ;D


Last time I met a centrist they thought immigrants were trash. I don't believe anyone is a true centrist. Just right wingers in disguise.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Last time I met a centrist they thought immigrants were trash. I don't believe anyone is a true centrist. Just right wingers in disguise.


I actually lean left and libertarian. just not far enough to escape that event horizon.
*shrug*


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

When you see everyone who isn't like you as being against you, you live a life full of hate and misery. I would say "Don't do that. Love and understanding are better and will make the world less scary and less frustrating," but I think karma takes care of that on its own. My husband's grandmother ended up with that view of men, probably due to some early experience with a husband. Hated all men. Thought they were all against her and women. Was a pretty miserable person who couldn't enjoy time with her grandson and died alone. So, karma.

Also, stop it with the politics.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I actually lean left and libertarian. just not far enough to escape that event horizon.
> *shrug*


Don't like libertarians either but to a much lesser extent than right wingers. Everytime I see the word libertarian I think of the libertarian debate where they fought over drivers licenses.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

So, now the consensus is voluntary or involuntary celibate AND sexually active - everyone is either a d-bag or a-hole.   

Not sure that helps the argument, though.  Lol.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Don't like libertarians either but to a much lesser extent than right wingers. Everytime I see the word libertarian I think of the libertarian debate where they fought over drivers licenses.


You know theres a difference between libertarian and Libertarian, right?
Lower case L is just anti-authoritarian


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> You know theres a difference between libertarian and Libertarian, right?
> Lower case L is just anti-authoritarian


Some people think drivers licenses and speed limits are authoritarian. So yeah still fits in there.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Some people think drivers licenses and speed limits are authoritarian. So yeah still fits in there.


*squints*
I dont care about drivers licenses


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Oh shit... a pause?
Yiss, time to get this shit back on track.

... though i dunno what more to say.

Abandon thread!


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Some of the unnecessary hostility, machismo about thinking you're being challenged even thought no one is trying to offend anyone, and the tribalism which is being shown in this thread, is making me think of "toxic masculinity"...


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Don't like libertarians either but to a much lesser extent than right wingers. Everytime I see the word libertarian I think of the libertarian debate where they fought over drivers licenses.


Just a note...don't include European Libertarians in that, please. I am one of those and I'm told the American Libertarian is very different. Don't want to be tarred with the same brush, here.

On topic...I do struggle to comprehend what conditional celibacy is. I know it relies upon conditions either being met or not being met. But isn't everybody, to an extent, conditionally celibate? This is where the confusion lies for me.

I picked 'Not Celibate' cos I haven't taken any vows of celibacy. However, I will only have sex with my romantic partner. So it's also conditional, then? I'm abstaining from sex with strangers or friends...so I suppose it is still celibacy, in a way.

And if that is true, that also means that 'Not Celibate' would imply you sleep with anyone, regardless of conditions set for yourself? Perhaps I'm just overthinking it or missing something, here.


----------



## ConorHyena (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> On topic...I do struggle to comprehend what conditional celibacy is. I know it relies upon conditions either being met or not being met. But isn't everybody, to an extent, conditionally celibate? This is where the confusion lies for me.
> 
> I picked 'Not Celibate' cos I haven't taken any vows of celibacy. However, I will only have sex with my romantic partner. So it's also conditional, then? I'm abstaining from sex with strangers or friends...so I suppose it is still celibacy, in a way.
> 
> And if that is true, that also means that 'Not Celibate' would imply you sleep with anyone, regardless of conditions set for yourself? Perhaps I'm just overthinking it or missing something, here.



I kinda agree with this. I've also picked not celibate cause, y'know, I'm not a part-time monk or anything, but that kinda doesn't imply the moment someone raises a skirt, I'll be sleeping with them.

which would be conditional too, I guess?


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> [...] and maybe gay women like masculine women (I haven’t asked them tho).


With gay men and women alike, being gay means one thing: Being attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. Anything else is a subjective preference and nothing more. My sexuality dictates what I would like in my bed, not the color I would like my bed to be.




Toby_Morpheus said:


> I mean
> There are studies
> 
> 
> ...


This is a thing that has been bothering me for a while during the lifespan of this thread. People often refer to studies or scientific evidence to get a leg up during an argument. But rarely is it something we can take to be credible.
Now, I don't expect anybody to tackle any discussion of lovers of anthropomorphic animals with academic levels of objectivity in mind, however, if people refer to science the should take the extra step to make sure it's a valid source.

For reference, how do we know what is and what is valid? I will make an example with the article you've linked:

*Site sources, give numeric details into the results of your study.*
The sources mentioned are one article from nbc news, which is another article but not a study in itself. As well as two more studies, one being the "UC Santa Barbara Study", sadly none of the two links provided work. As for numbers in the article, we have none. It's always: " Women who were asked the question in this research stated that the perfect female body was skinny, with little body mass. That's right: the skinnier, the better." or " Men seemed to focus on larger elements, curvier shapes and hourglass figures. That's right: Men seemed to prefer a bit more in terms of curvature."
Never do we hear of percentages, let alone of how many people were actually asked.
*A large test group provides more accurate data. *
This one is very important, because by right, everybody can ask a range of people varying between 10 and 100 and call their work a scientifically proven study. And they would be right with that, but the data we get from it is little, obviously. The more people you test, the more data you will get to work with. It leaves less up to chance and provides a more detailed picture that we can interpret easier. If I ask two people what women they prefer, a might say "with rounded hips" and b might say "with pronounced breasts". But afterwards, a statement like "50% of subjects asked prefers hips and 50% of subjects prefers breasts" is all I will have. Which isn't exactly a lot.
To get back to the article that was linked, it doesn't even provide us with a number of test subjects, but the nbc article does. "_14 men at the age of 25."_ To draw a comparison, in my field of work we start seeing studies as valid when at least 500-600 people have been tested.


*Quality criteria*
This one is perhaps the most important, a quick breakdown of it:

*Validity*: A measurement is valid if it actually measures what it is supposed to measure and thus delivers credible results.
Does our nbc study test what it's supposed to be? It looks at what men prefer, not what women prefer. But for all intents and purposes, yes, it does. (It's an "hourglass" shape, by the way. That is, if you want to trust the words of the 14 randos that have been asked.)

*Reliability*: Reliability refers to whether your research delivers reliable results when it is repeated.
The study is not reliable. It was only done once, so we can't be sure if the results will be the same if we repeat it. The group of subjects is also very small, providing little data that isn't reliable enough.

*Objectivity*: A research is objective if there are no unintended influences from people involved.
Nothing has been done to prevent unintended influences, this it is not objective. (Examples for measures against said unintended influences could be "Standardization procedures, blind methods or double-blind methods. But none of that was used during this study.)

In conclusion, have a look at your sources before you link to a random study that might help you win an argument. Often, "a study" is about as valid as stating "my bestie said this, so this is now my truth."


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Of course they are. But they aren't creating a pairing, they're suggesting one. The woman is still choosing and the men are still trying to be chosen.
> 
> Everyone has standards, that's not the point. Men will pursue less desirable women and the women will still be choosing the men. The absolute top of the males will simply have all the females, because they'll choose the apparent best.
> 
> ...




I _am_ getting the impression that you have emotional reasons to believe these ideas- and that this might be the reason you have renounced relationships. Perhaps it's because you brought up emotions without me asking you- it feels like you anticipated people would perceive your ideas as emotionally based.
Am I correct that you view relationships with women as unfairly punitive towards men and that this is the reason you don't want them?

You've used diamond rings to argue that men are under an evolutionary demand to prove their ability to provide.
Diamond rings are a relatively recent marketing phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Beers#Marketing

so I am not sure that we can use them to form a convincing argument about human evolution.

You might say 'they're just the latest expression of a long history of expectations of men to prove their worth to women,'

But through much of human history the financial burden of marriage and raising a family has rested on the family of the_ bride_- rather than the groom.
This is a practice known as 'dowry'




__





						Dowry - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




(Indeed the entire Shetland islands were given to Scotland by the royal family of Norway, as a dowry payment for the marriage of a Scandinavian princess to James the third.)


Hence, if we accept diamond rings as proof that men must flaunt themselves for women to select mates- like in Peacocks, we must equally view the existence of dowries as proof of the reverse.




quoting_mungo said:


> While I’m sure there are species in which mate selection _is_ entirely one-sided, we do see examples of selective sexual behavior in both sexes in other species, as well. A mare will happily kick the snot out of a stallion she doesn’t care for, but there are stallions that won’t cover mares of certain colors, for instance, as well.



I find it a bit odd as well how most 'biological' commentary on dating is based on sexual ornaments in egg-laying dinosaurs like peacocks or blackbirds anyway.

In mammals you get stuff like females having multiple male partners at the same time, male breeding rights being decided by violent tournament style competition, or infanticide of a female's existing children.  

Things that are rarely typical in human relationships. x3

and then in some mammals it is _females_ that fight each other for social dominance and mating rights.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> I kinda agree with this. I've also picked not celibate cause, y'know, I'm not a part-time monk or anything, but that kinda doesn't imply the moment someone raises a skirt, I'll be sleeping with them.
> 
> which would be conditional too, I guess?


I think so, yes. This is a good point to raise.


----------



## ConorHyena (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> I think so, yes. This is a good point to raise.



welcome to the world of conditional celibacy. 

does this mean you'll get a part-time tonsure too?


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

ConorHyena said:


> welcome to the world of conditional celibacy.
> 
> does this mean you'll get a part-time tonsure too?


Perhaps. I may need a haircut, soon.

However, finding a leather robe might be a bit hard.
Always custom work, though.


----------



## ConorHyena (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Perhaps. I may need a haircut, soon.
> 
> However, finding a leather robe might be a bit hard.
> Always custom work, though.


I think this is commission-quality material.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Like I said, if I were to look at a furry forum, I would conclude that furries are the most perverted, toxic, and drama seeking people on the planet.


Self-loathing and insulting doesn't really get you anywhere. If I had a pound for every time a furry in 2020 said this, I'd have enough to buy Apple. And then I'd sell it to Samsung for poops and giggles. Then I'd spend the earnings donating to charities.

I do recommend you look at actual incels and their (disgusting) behaviour.


----------



## Traget (Oct 26, 2020)

Well, I'm rather hesitant to say it considering all the discussion going on, but I suppose I would class myself as involuntary celibate based on the original post's line, "This may be due to being unable to find a suitable partner, being physically, emotionally, or mentally unable of intercourse, or other reason preventing intercourse."

I could have a relationship and intimacy just fine, but since the question was about sex specifically I would say that while I would like to try it, my own personal emotional/mental state tends to make me extremely anxious and disconnected to my body. It kills any sex drive I have in the moment, so I would class that as involuntary.


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Last time I met a centrist they thought immigrants were trash. I don't believe anyone is a true centrist. Just right wingers in disguise.


Gasp! I am actually a left leaning centrist. Dun hurt me 

TBF though. I don't do politics seriously soo.. I guess one could argue I am apolitical as well?


----------



## DergenTheDragon (Oct 26, 2020)

Skittles said:


> Gasp! I am actually a left leaning centrist. Dun hurt me


Anyone who hurts the queen will be eaten..


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Skittles said:


> Gasp! I am actually a left leaning centrist. Dun hurt me
> 
> TBF though. I don't do politics seriously soo.. I guess one could argue I am apolitical as well?


I’ve known you for a while. Your a sweetheart. I’ll back you up if anyone accuses you of being a liar or God forbid some fascist


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I’ve known you for a while. Your a sweetheart. I’ll back you up if anyone accuses you of being a liar or God forbid some fascist


Skittles is good queen. No one denies that.


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

Oh I am all for equal rights and treating folks right!
I just think an established law and order and military is needed to protect folks from those who would harm or repress our freedoms.


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

Back on subject. How about folks who like chastity? I guess that fits with voluntary?


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Skittles said:


> Back on subject. How about folks who like chastity? I guess that fits with voluntary?


Most likely


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

Ok, maybe idiocy on my part or gross oversimplification.

I use a toy, I break my hymen.  So, if doing a 'virginity test', I would be counted as having sex.  So, would that be counted as not celibate? 

Is same true for guys and self play?


----------



## Skittles (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Ok, maybe idiocy on my part or gross oversimplification.
> 
> I use a toy, I break my hymen.  So, if doing a 'virginity test', I would be counted as having sex.  So, would that be counted as not celibate?
> 
> Is same true for guys and self play?


Good question


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 26, 2020)

I would consider the difference between having standards and voluntary celibacy (granting the point that’s been brought up that “celibacy” may not necessarily be a great word in all cases) to be something like... Is your position “I’m holding off on sex” or “I want to choose my partner.” Not great wording, but to me it seems like voluntary celibacy is treating the sex itself as a Thing, while not-jumping-at-every-opportunity-regardless-of-whom-you’d-be-fucking is treating each encounter as the Thing. Yeah, definitely having trouble finding the words for this.



Minerva_Minx said:


> Ok, maybe idiocy on my part or gross oversimplification.
> 
> I use a toy, I break my hymen.  So, if doing a 'virginity test', I would be counted as having sex.  So, would that be counted as not celibate?
> 
> Is same true for guys and self play?


The hymen’s connection to virginity is largely a myth. Not all women will have enough of a hymen (or any, IIRC) to pass a “virginity test,” anyway. Sports can result in breaking the hymen, horseback riding being a common example. The only “reliable” virginity test, if you’re going to call it that, would come with certain kinds of FGM, and I should hope no one here would argue that that’s a route we should be headed down.

The hymen = virginity bullshit also leads to silly ideas like oral and anal sex not counting as sex, and harmful ideas like CSA making victims “not virgins.” If you’re part of a cultural group that places value on virginity and no sex until marriage or whatever, that can significantly increase the trauma of CSA or pre-marital rape.

Virginity, if you want to give the concept any attention/credence/significance  at all, should be based on “have you had consensual sex?” and nothing else.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

ClumsyWitch said:


> With gay men and women alike, being gay means one thing: Being attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. Anything else is a subjective preference and nothing more. My sexuality dictates what I would like in my bed, not the color I would like my bed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Perhaps this is more to your liking?








						From Preferred to Actual Mate Characteristics: The Case of Human Body Shape
					

The way individuals pair to produce reproductive units is a major factor determining evolution. This process is complex because it is determined not only by individual mating preferences, but also by numerous other factors such as competition between ...




					www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

quoting_mungo said:


> I would consider the difference between having standards and voluntary celibacy (granting the point that’s been brought up that “celibacy” may not necessarily be a great word in all cases) to be something like... Is your position “I’m holding off on sex” or “I want to choose my partner.” Not great wording, but to me it seems like voluntary celibacy is treating the sex itself as a Thing, while not-jumping-at-every-opportunity-regardless-of-whom-you’d-be-fucking is treating each encounter as the Thing. Yeah, definitely having trouble finding the words for this.
> 
> 
> The hymen’s connection to virginity is largely a myth. Not all women will have enough of a hymen (or any, IIRC) to pass a “virginity test,” anyway. Sports can result in breaking the hymen, horseback riding being a common example. The only “reliable” virginity test, if you’re going to call it that, would come with certain kinds of FGM, and I should hope no one here would argue that that’s a route we should be headed down.
> ...


Then there is no incel statistics that are scientifically accurate.  That is to say, no incel _movement_ statistics.

Current statistics by the CDC, provide mainly for intercourse, and sex rates are dropping.

And, as for sarcasm, we're discussing abstinence and abstention from sex, not actually celibacy, which is more religious in context.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> I do recommend you look at actual incels and their (disgusting) behaviour.



Like I mentioned a few times, I was actually involuntarily celibate. Some of my friends still are since they can't find a date. Their disgusting behavior is being too shy and socially awkward. Most of them are gay too.



Minerva_Minx said:


> Then there is no incel statistics that are scientifically accurate. That is to say, no incel movement statistics.
> 
> Current statistics by the CDC, provide mainly for intercourse, and sex rates are dropping.



Ah, good point. Reminds me that by the general definition, Japan is having a huge issue with "incels" right now, the issue being that too few people are forming couples and reproducing. I don't think anyone could claim it's because of an increasing case of "toxic behavior" though


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> Then there is no incel statistics that are scientifically accurate.  That is to say, no incel _movement_ statistics.
> 
> Current statistics by the CDC, provide mainly for intercourse, and sex rates are dropping.
> 
> And, as for sarcasm, we're discussing abstinence and abstention from sex, not actually celibacy, which is more religious in context.


That study covers teen sex rates dropping and it compares more recent stats to the 80s.
I am unsure I would quantity that as involuntary celibacy myself as there are many factors like more open and available knowledge for sexual education possibly prompting a voluntary reduction on teh sex.
Also culture may have changed in the sense of sex may have been considered a marker of some accomplishment in one generation and not for the other in which the answers for the study may have been skewed for more reasons as well.
It is interesting to muse though and I’d like to see a sociological study paired with it for those types of questions to better understand, and no not saying for you to provide them that last part is more my own personal musing of how to better grasp the why.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> That study covers teen sex rates dropping and it compares more recent stats to the 80s.
> I am unsure I would quantity that as involuntary celibacy myself as there are many factors like more open and available knowledge for sexual education possibly prompting a voluntary reduction on teh sex.
> Also culture may have changed in the sense of sex may have been considered a marker of some accomplishment in one generation and not for the other in which the answers for the study may have been skewed for more reasons as well.
> It is interesting to muse though and I’d like to see a sociological study paired with it for those types of questions to better understand, and no not saying for you to provide them that last part is more my own personal musing of how to better grasp the why.


That's about as scientific on this as one can get.  Everything else has definitions that don't match, low population, location specific.  pardom the idiom, but this is like applying scientific fact from religious text.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Ah, good point. Reminds me that by the general definition, Japan is having a huge issue with "incels" right now, the issue being that too few people are forming couples and reproducing. I don't think anyone could claim it's because of an increasing case of "toxic behavior" though


In essence, Japan's sex rate issue is characterized with a few facets.
One, their society focuses heavily on financial success, leaving many to ditch personal lives to get that bread.
Second, there is actually a growing issue with masculinity in Japan. More men are becoming reclusive and less confident and Japanese men are less attractive overall to Japanese women, who have an outgroup bias, specifically for American and European men in general.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Another thing to consider perhaps in the case of man involuntary celibates is that this is an issue created by men when there are now showings of single women being happier than their married To men counterparts?


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 26, 2020)

Minerva_Minx said:


> And, as for sarcasm, we're discussing abstinence and abstention from sex, not actually celibacy, which is more religious in context.


Thanks; I was genuinely drawing a blank on the word. I suspect this whole thread would have worked out better (or at least very differently) if “abstinence” had been used instead from the get-go. No shade on OP, just an observation. Can’t really criticize someone for not using a word I couldn’t think of myself.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Like I mentioned a few times, I was actually involuntarily celibate. Some of my friends still are since they can't find a date. Their disgusting behavior is being too shy and socially awkward. Most of them are gay too.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, good point. Reminds me that by the general definition, Japan is having a huge issue with "incels" right now, the issue being that too few people are forming couples and reproducing. I don't think anyone could claim it's because of an increasing case of "toxic behavior" though


Incels are a different group from people who can't find sex! Why can't you flipping get that through your head? Incels are scum where as people who can't find sex are just people who can't find sex. Jesus. This is annoying the shit out of me.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Incels are a different group from people who can't find sex! Why can't you flipping get that through your head? Incels are scum where as people who can't find sex are just people who can't find sex. Jesus. This is annoying the shit out of me.



That's why we were using the term involuntarily celibate instead of incels. Why can't you "get that through your head?" Maybe what's annoying the shit out of you is people challenging your preconceived notions about what "incels" are actually like? It's easier to hate a group when you don't have someone showing that not everyone in the group should be hated. Probably why the left hates black and gay supporters of opposing parties. But, regardless, your unnecessary hostility and attack on a whole group is quite unnecessary.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

ClumsyWitch said:


> With gay men and women alike, being gay means one thing: Being attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. Anything else is a subjective preference and nothing more. My sexuality dictates what I would like in my bed, not the color I would like my bed to be.



Like, no kidding. But there might be broad characteristics that gay women prefer in the other woman, just like there seems to be broad characteristics gay men seem to prefer. But notice I hedged my language to indicate explicitly that it was based on my personal observation and hypothesis. You’re barking up the wrong tree. 



> This is a thing that has been bothering me for a while during the lifespan of this thread. People often refer to studies or scientific evidence to get a leg up during an argument. But rarely is it something we can take to be credible.
> Now, I don't expect anybody to tackle any discussion of lovers of anthropomorphic animals with academic levels of objectivity in mind, however, if people refer to science the should take the extra step to make sure it's a valid source.
> 
> For reference, how do we know what is and what is valid? I will make an example with the article you've linked:
> ...



You were doing good right up until the end there, when you said “a study is often only as valid as...” Linking a study in a discussion might back up someone’s argument and it might not, it really depends entirely on what the discussion is and how reputable the article is. It’s not exactly an academic setting (in fact quite the opposite, most of the posts in here are jus pseudo intellectual mental masturbations).


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Incels are a different group from people who can't find sex! Why can't you flipping get that through your head? Incels are scum where as people who can't find sex are just people who can't find sex. Jesus. This is annoying the shit out of me.


Incel lives matter!


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> You were doing good right up until the end there, when you said “a study is often only as valid as...” Linking a study in a discussion might back up someone’s argument and it might not, it really depends entirely on what the discussion is and how reputable the article is. It’s not exactly an academic setting (in fact quite the opposite, most of the posts in here are jus pseudo intellectual mental masturbations).


Don't worry. I provided a better source upon request.
No broken links this time ;3


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Don't worry. I provided a better source upon request.
> No broken links this time ;3


You did! 116 isn't exactly large either but it's a step forwards, and the article reads much better then the previous one in many aspects. 



SwiftDog said:


> it really depends entirely on what the discussion is and how reputable the article is.


That's the important take away from my post. Only that matters, anything else, including everything I said unrelated to how one can find reputable sources, is subjective.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> That's why we were using the term involuntarily celibate instead of incels. Why can't you "get that through your head?" Maybe what's annoying the shit out of you is people challenging your preconceived notions about what "incels" are actually like? It's easier to hate a group when you don't have someone showing that not everyone in the group should be hated. Probably why the left hates black and gay supporters of opposing parties. But, regardless, your unnecessary hostility and attack on a whole group is quite unnecessary.



Wait are you actually supporting incels? Oh man this gonna be comedy gold here.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

ClumsyWitch said:


> You did! 116 isn't exactly large either but it's a step forwards, and the article reads much better then the previous one in many aspects.


It does reference a lot of other studies along the same lines as well. Check the end ;3


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 26, 2020)

reputable





Toby_Morpheus said:


> It does reference a lot of other studies along the same lines as well. Check the end ;3


116 is the number of tested subjects. The sources, especially at the end, have been noted and appreciated


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

I'm really starting to see why the politics section was removed. Please don't get my thread locked. 

As for non-celibate/conditional celibate, I personally am under the idea that having standards or a monogamous relationship are not conditional. The only thing in question for non-celibacy is can a person get sex when they desire it, not if they have to take up the first person they can find. If a person is in a solitary relationship and would only have intercourse with the sole partner, this would be classed as not celibate, in my opinion. Conditional would be more along the lines of "I will only have sex with my spouse for the intent of procreation, ceasing upon confirmation of pregnancy, and never doing so before or after unless trying for another child in the future."

As for masturbation and such, personally I don't consider that the same thing. I'd personally call celibacy more about sharing intimacy or at least a joint agreement of intercourse than just pleasuring oneself. Toys don't change that.

However of course the poll is self-reporting, so feel free to select an option based on personal definitions should they vary from mine. 



quoting_mungo said:


> Thanks; I was genuinely drawing a blank on the word. I suspect this whole thread would have worked out better (or at least very differently) if “abstinence” had been used instead from the get-go. No shade on OP, just an observation. Can’t really criticize someone for not using a word I couldn’t think of myself.



I can't disagree abstinence would have been appropriate, but I don't think celibate/celibacy is inappropriate. It's ultimately about one's ability to engage in intercourse, while abstinence is mostly just the act of refraining from it. "Involuntarily abstinence" doesn't make as much sense to me personally, language wise.



Fallowfox said:


> I _am_ getting the impression that you have emotional reasons to believe these ideas- and that this might be the reason you have renounced relationships. Perhaps it's because you brought up emotions without me asking you- it feels like you anticipated people would perceive your ideas as emotionally based.
> Am I correct that you view relationships with women as unfairly punitive towards men and that this is the reason you don't want them?
> 
> You've used diamond rings to argue that men are under an evolutionary demand to prove their ability to provide.
> ...



I'm afraid you're projecting an emotional investment then. I did anticipate emotional responses, because I understand that I'm the significant minority when I say that I don't experience romantic or sexual attraction to other people. Make no mistake, I'm fully capable of sex and my libido is damn near overactive, I only want a substantial emotional investment with my partners beforehand, even if I can't have a romantic one. Sex as a show of affection. As for why I'd prefer male partners, I just like chicken more than beef and that's true for more than just my dietary preferences. 

No, it is not correct that I view relationships as unfair. I am only stating the apparent nature of things as someone more or less unaffiliated with them.

Diamond rings may not be as old as human history but they are a popular tradition for a reason. The act of giving gifts to potential suitors shows the person has the means to spend above mere survival. I.E, they have an excess of resources. All sexually dimorphic species with mating and courtship behaviours will display behaviours or traits which demonstrate excess. I simply see no reason why this observable behaviour in humans wouldn't be attributed to the same cause.

Funnily enough I think a dowry given to a daughter's new family is more of a form of parental care. If a new family unit starts with an excess of resources needed for survival, reproduction will be more successful and is liable to begin sooner. This act increases the probability of the father's genetic code being inherited in subsequent generations. (In animals it is largely agreed that altruism to family members is more about maintaining the survival of the actor's DNA in the subject than the subject's own welfare.)

Peacocks show their bright, vibrant feathers as a demonstration that they have large quantities of energy to waste and are still strong enough to survive. Peafowls are smaller and very plain in comparison, because they are the ones choosing and aren't required to persuade the males. In this sense, a man giving a lavish ring to a woman is showing he has resources to burn. Dowries are more like a pride of lions sharing a kill, even though not all the lions actively participated in the hunt.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Wait are you actually supporting incels? Oh man this gonna be comedy gold here.



I honestly don't know. I'm saying people who are involuntarily celibate aren't all like how she describes them to be.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> That's why we were using the term involuntarily celibate instead of incels. Why can't you "get that through your head?" Maybe what's annoying the shit out of you is people challenging your preconceived notions about what "incels" are actually like? It's easier to hate a group when you don't have someone showing that not everyone in the group should be hated. Probably why the left hates black and gay supporters of opposing parties. But, regardless, your unnecessary hostility and attack on a whole group is quite unnecessary.


When I've gone out of my way to not only define 'incel' for you and ask trusted friends who, quite frankly, know more than me about this strange place we call 'the internet' about the term...I think it's more than likely you misunderstand what incel and by extension 'involuntary celibate' means. (Cos they mean the same thing, as shown by said definition, you bloody twits).

So you've effectively ignored that. Perhaps if you read and researched, you'd find these connotations to be true. Incels ARE mostly toxic. Ignoring this is disrespectful. I'm doing all the legwork for you. How many times do people have to tell you that isn't the same thing?

If you can't find a partner in the modern world because of legitimate reasons like a lack of social skills or a tight work schedule, then you are NOT an involuntary celibate. Stop acting like it's somehow exactly the same. You're tarring innocent people with the same brush.

Create a new term for it or don't. Either way, the people you are defending aren't involuntary celibates at all.

Also, I don't know what taking a political-driven pot shot has to do with this thread, but OK.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> That's why we were using the term involuntarily celibate instead of incels. Why can't you "get that through your head?" Maybe what's annoying the shit out of you is people challenging your preconceived notions about what "incels" are actually like? It's easier to hate a group when you don't have someone showing that not everyone in the group should be hated. Probably why the left hates black and gay supporters of opposing parties. But, regardless, your unnecessary hostility and attack on a whole group is quite unnecessary.


Incel and involuntary celibate are the SAME


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> When I've gone out of my way to not only define 'incel' for you and ask trusted friends who, quite frankly, know more than me about this strange place we call 'the internet' about the term...I think it's more than likely you misunderstand what incel and by extension 'involuntary celibate' means. (Cos they mean the same thing, as shown by said definition, you bloody twits).
> 
> So you've effectively ignored that. Perhaps if you read and researched, you'd find these connotations to be true. Incels ARE mostly toxic. Ignoring this is disrespectful. I'm doing all the legwork for you. How many times do people have to tell you that isn't the same thing?
> 
> ...



Yes by the definition they are using, disabled people are incels


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Yes by the definition they are using, disabled people are incels





Punji said:


> Involuntarily celibate -- Refrains from intercourse entirely against one's wishes. This may be due to being unable to find a suitable partner, *being physically*, emotionally, or mentally *unable of intercourse*, or other reason preventing intercourse. (Religious beliefs are considered voluntary.) One must desire intercourse without successfully engaging it under desired conditions.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

I'll get a stress headache from this, but bloody hell...here we go.

Let's analyse this word: Incel. I-N-C-E-L. India November Charlie Echo Lima. 5 letter word. Two syllables. 
It is short for 'Involuntary Celibate'. We took the 'in' and the 'cel' and slapped them together, cos we're lazy people in this world.

Look up both terms on the internet. You'll find they are intrinsically linked with each other.

And I don't give a flying toss what the inventor of the word intended it to be. It's changed meaning. And it's all the incels' fault. Not ours, not yours. THEIRS. So let them live with their own fuck-ups and their own toxicity so we can all play volleyball in the sunshine and drink orange juice.

Here, I'll post it again:
Incels (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-selz), a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.[1][2][3] Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.

From Wikipedia. The free encyclopaedia that any miserable fuck can access, including me.

There. The second time I've had to post that and repeat like a broken record.

And cos I know furries well, I would guess they'd respond using the NATO phonetic alphabet to mock me. But what-fucking-ever. I can read you like a book.

Can we stop ignoring sheer logic now, please? Thank you.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Yes by the definition they are using, disabled people are incels


Seeming to be that way. Thinking they're great people and seeking social brownie points by appearing to defend people who are disabled or have real difficulty (not fake ones like incels) with life and love, equally.

I've proven previously there are ways in which incels can have sex (but some people hate them with a passion cos it breaks their false sense of reality). But nope. They still don't.

Even if they asked Madame Lotus nicely, they wouldn't even get a look-in. They're so filled with toxicity, it's all they can offer. I don't know a single lady or man or Scotch winged elephant mouse who *likes* toxicity, let alone finds it sexually appealing.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Heh
You know
By how we're using involuntary celibate here, especially the line where someone is mentally unfit for sexual intercourse, it appears that the Incel (capital i) subculture philosophy is the exact thing preventing them from said intercourse, making said ideology the reason they are mentally incapable.

Please don't boo me if this was obvious. I just play video games and tinker with electronics all day lol.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

It’s arguable that we could take back the meaning of involuntarily celibate however. Change it back to its original meaning that just meant people who would like sex but can’t seem to find it due to disabilities, social awkwardness, or so forth. But does it really need a label? There’s so many labels and everyone is so label happy these days it’s absurd. Just be people. People just be people. Everyone is unique anyway why do we need these labels.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> It’s arguable that we could take back the meaning of involuntarily celibate however. Change it back to its original meaning that just meant people who would like sex but can’t seem to find it due to disabilities, social awkwardness, or so forth. But does it really need a label? There’s so many labels and everyone is so label happy these days it’s absurd. Just be people. People just be people. Everyone is unique anyway why do we need these labels.


I don't really like labels much either, but humans like having things organized into easily digestible information pellets.
Rather than spend all the time going through things one by one for each person, it seems far easier to just slap a sign over them and then assume core values of a person, disregarding the nuances of human individuality.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> It’s arguable that we could take back the meaning of involuntarily celibate however. Change it back to its original meaning that just meant people who would like sex but can’t seem to find it due to disabilities, social awkwardness, or so forth. But does it really need a label? There’s so many labels and everyone is so label happy these days it’s absurd. Just be people. People just be people. Everyone is unique anyway why do we need these labels.


I think the damage is done as far as the meaning is concerned.

Making up a new term for those who can't due to disabilities and the like would be a better idea. If someone had the power to invent a word to describe incels, they have the power to make another one.

I do think labels, in this matter anyway, are important. It prevents complete twits from tarring others with the same...yeah, I've used that turn of phrase 3 or 4 times before in this thread. But still, same point applies.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Yes by the definition they are using, disabled people are incels


Which mind you is a total crock because like sexual activity and such while yes in a super reductive and unenlightened manner can be drilled down to just penetrative sex (If those are the sorts of disabilities we are referring to since disabled is a wide range of things that could impact a persons experiences and life) really shouldnt be considered such because sexual gratification satisfaction and other expansive experiences can still considerably break outside of the celibacy circle especially when in terms of "incels".
This is to say that disabled folk as you seem to be implying here arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

1) What do you call people who are celibate involuntarily? You can't call them virgins because they aren't necessarily. You can't call them abstinent, because they're not trying to be.

2) Why do you believe an internet culture represents an entire group? I mentioned the parallel with furry Twitter not representing all of furry, and there are plenty more similar ones with the loudest voices not being the representation. Does wanting to have sex and not being able to automatically makes one a misogynistic, asshole, white supremacist? Or is it just the term association? (Reminds me of an Twitter guy from India who posted "racist" in his profile description and bragged about how he's a great racist and how it's his hobby, and turns out he just loves to race cars)

Also, I'm a pilot, so if you mock me for using the NATO phonetic alphabet, I'll just look down on you.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

I don't want to tell people what to think and say but at the same time it's probably for the best for everyone to just drop the idea and leave it be.

That said, I used the term "involuntarily celibate" and not "incel" because one has an extremely negative connotation and the other does not, even though they mean effectively the same thing. The question being posed in the poll was more along the lines of willingness and and desire to have sex. Involuntarily celibate refers to people to are unable to engage in it due to factors beyond their primary control, not a political statement.

Something to the effect of someone answering involuntarily celibate because he or she was raped as a child and cannot willingly engage in sex with his or her partner without suffering the psychological trauma of the past events, but wishes he or she could be intimate with the person he or she loves.

The unfavourable descriptions of "incels" being thrown about and having this apply equally to "involuntarily celibate" is very unfair, in my opinion.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> 1) What do you call people who are celibate involuntarily? You can't call them virgins because they aren't necessarily. You can't call them abstinent, because they're not trying to be.
> 
> 2) Why do you believe an internet culture represents an entire group? I mentioned the parallel with furry Twitter not representing all of furry, and there are plenty more similar ones with the loudest voices not being the representation. Does wanting to have sex and not being able to automatically makes one a misogynistic, asshole, white supremacist? Or is it just the term association? (Reminds me of an Twitter guy from India who posted "racist" in his profile description and bragged about how he's a great racist and how it's his hobby, and turns out he just loves to race cars)


I mean, that is a thing.
I think the majority of people one could talk to about incels in public aren't going to reach the numbers like they do on the internet.
I'm willing to put money down to say that the majority of real people (as opposed to virtual like us) won't know what incel even means.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Which mind you is a total crock because like sexual activity and such while yes in a super reductive and unenlightened manner can be drilled down to just penetrative sex (If those are the sorts of disabilities we are referring to since disabled is a wide range of things that could impact a persons experiences and life) really shouldnt be considered such because sexual gratification satisfaction and other expansive experiences can still considerably break outside of the celibacy circle especially when in terms of "incels".
> This is to say that disabled folk as you seem to be implying here arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.



Your reading comprehension really needs work. I’m not saying disabled people are incels. I’m saying the definition they’re using would throw a lot of disabled people into the incel category. Which is absurd. 

If you need help understanding what people are saying, please ask for clarification. Then your rants can be more effective.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I mean, that is a thing.
> I think the majority of people one could talk to about incels in public aren't going to reach the numbers like they do on the internet.
> I'm willing to put money down to say that the majority of real people (as opposed to virtual like us) won't know what incel even means.



And I suspect the majority who do know what incel means can differentiate between incel culture and people who are involuntarily celibate. Or at least I hope that's the case. I could be wrong.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Your reading comprehension really needs work. I’m not saying disabled people are incels. I’m saying the definition they’re using would throw a lot of disabled people into the incel category. Which is absurd.
> 
> If you need help understanding what people are saying, please ask for clarification. Then your rants can be more effective.


" This is to say that disabled folk as you seem to be implying here arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.         "
I was saying that you seemed to be implying that disabled folk arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.
As in you seemed to imply they arent incels.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I don't want to tell people what to think and say but at the same time it's probably for the best for everyone to just drop the idea and leave it be.
> 
> That said, I used the term "involuntarily celibate" and not "incel" because one has an extremely negative connotation and the other does not, even though they mean effectively the same thing. The question being posed in the poll was more along the lines of willingness and and desire to have sex. Involuntarily celibate refers to people to are unable to engage in it due to factors beyond their primary control, not a political statement.
> 
> ...


Oh god. Now you're trying to paint rape victims.

Fuck me, you ARE asking for a smack, aren't you?



Rassah said:


> 1) What do you call people who are celibate involuntarily? You can't call them virgins because they aren't necessarily. You can't call them abstinent, because they're not trying to be.
> 
> 2) Why do you believe an internet culture represents an entire group? I mentioned the parallel with furry Twitter not representing all of furry, and there are plenty more similar ones with the loudest voices not being the representation. Does wanting to have sex and not being able to automatically makes one a misogynistic, asshole, white supremacist? Or is it just the term association? (Reminds me of an Twitter guy from India who posted "racist" in his profile description and bragged about how he's a great racist and how it's his hobby, and turns out he just loves to race cars)
> 
> Also, I'm a pilot, so if you mock me for using the NATO phonetic alphabet, I'll just look down on you.


When there's actual evidence to support the idea that an internet culture does represent the majority of a group, then your argument falls flat.

So what if someone on Twitter posted racist in his profile description? That doesn't prove anything at all. 'Racist' means something other than what he meant to say.

You call them 'people who have difficulty in finding sexual or romantic partners because of legitimate hurdles that are out of their control'. And until a word is invented to denote that, you'll have to post that long-ass definition.

Look down on me all you want. Once again, you missed what I was saying entirely. Well done. Gold star.

And they let YOU fly planes, huh? Wow. Do you think runway and Atlantic ocean are the same? You're comparing two things that don't even match up with each other in the slightest.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I don't want to tell people what to think and say but at the same time it's probably for the best for everyone to just drop the idea and leave it be.
> 
> That said, I used the term "involuntarily celibate" and not "incel" because one has an extremely negative connotation and the other does not, even though they mean effectively the same thing. The question being posed in the poll was more along the lines of willingness and and desire to have sex. Involuntarily celibate refers to people to are unable to engage in it due to factors beyond their primary control, not a political statement.
> 
> ...



There are probably technical terms to describe people who cannot have sexual due to trauma, ie the basis PTSD diagnosis. 



			https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/153416NCJRS.pdf


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> And I suspect the majority who do know what incel means can differentiate between incel culture and people who are involuntarily celibate. Or at least I hope that's the case. I could be wrong.


I think most rational people can.
If you describe the different kinds of people and don't use the labels associated to them, I imagine "asshole" might apply to those who have the mentality that Incels are purported to have, while "poor guy/girl" would be an accurate response to people who literally cannot have intercourse due to physical trauma of some variety.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Oh god. Now you're trying to paint rape victims.
> 
> Fuck me, you ARE asking for a smack, aren't you?



Dude, you're the one painting rape victims. He's saying they may be celibate but not by their own choice (involuntary) and you're trying to associate them with incel culture.
That's been the whole argument here. People saying "but I" or "but these people" are that and they're not like those Incels or part of that culture, and you and others saying "no, incels are incels and are terrible people!"


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> " This is to say that disabled folk as you seem to be implying here arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.         "
> I was saying that you seemed to be implying that disabled folk arent quite fitting the shoe of incel.
> As in you seemed to imply they arent incels.



No. Wait what?


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Let the nonsense and circular Arguments commence!


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Let the nonsense and circular Arguments commence!


You spin me right round, baby
;P


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Dude, you're the one painting rape victims. He's saying they may be celibate but not by their own choice (involuntary) and you're trying to associate them with incel culture.
> That's been the whole argument here. People saying "but I" or "but these people" are that and they're not like those Incels or part of that culture, and you and others saying "no, incels are incels and are terrible people!"


OK, so when he said:
" Something to the effect of someone answering involuntarily celibate because he or she was raped as a child and cannot willingly engage in sex with his or her partner without suffering the psychological trauma of the past events, but wishes he or she could be intimate with the person he or she loves"

He wasn't implying the event and the term can go hand in hand?

Yes, I'm the devil in this, aren't I?

Said argument is pointless because you and others don't grasp a simple concept.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> No. Wait what?


You, @SwiftDog , seemed to be implying that disabled people arent fitting the title of incel, as in that shoe hat shirt pants butt plug whatever term you may use for such is not one that fits those who are of the disabled flavor.

did my reading comprehension fail that assessment as you had accused me of? or did you not comprehend what I had written there?


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> When there's actual evidence to support the idea that an internet culture does represent the majority of a group, then your argument falls flat.



I would like to think that the furry fandom ISN'T just about porn and horny people trying to outdo themselves about how "unique" they are in their kinks and sexualities, who actively search out to find anyone who might find them weird just so they can act offended, play the victim card, and get a major superiority boost, but if you say that's the case, okay...



> You call them 'people who have difficulty in finding sexual or romantic partners because of legitimate hurdles that are out of their control'. And until a word is invented to denote that, you'll have to post that long-ass definition.



The word for that is involuntary.



> Look down on me all you want. Once again, you missed what I was saying entirely. Well done. Gold star.
> 
> And they let YOU fly planes, huh? Wow. Do you think runway and Atlantic ocean are the same? You're comparing two things that don't even match up with each other in the slightest.



I didn't say I would look down on you, I was defending you and saying I would look down on anyone who mocks me for that as well.

And, yes, they kind of have no choice to. I spent the year needed to study for and pass all the complex subjects to qualify, and then I built my own airplane, so "they" can't keep me out of the sky


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Honestly, I wish more people could humor a concept and its definition as stated, even if they may not agree with it, just for the sake of humoring the argument, rather than running around complaining about semantics.
*shrug*


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> There are probably technical terms to describe people who cannot have sexual due to trauma, ie the basis PTSD diagnosis.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/153416NCJRS.pdf



Perhaps, but the term involuntarily celibate accurately describes this already.



KD142000 said:


> Oh god. Now you're trying to paint rape victims.
> 
> Fuck me, you ARE asking for a smack, aren't you?





KD142000 said:


> OK, so when he said:
> " Something to the effect of someone answering involuntarily celibate because he or she was raped as a child and cannot willingly engage in sex with his or her partner without suffering the psychological trauma of the past events, but wishes he or she could be intimate with the person he or she loves"
> 
> He wasn't implying the event and the term can go hand in hand?
> ...



No. I'm saying a person can be literally unable to engage in sexual activities despite a genuine desire to do so through no fault of their own and is literally a person who is involuntarily celibate.

I don't think people should be going on a tirade about how "incels" are _literally the worst_ while equating the descriptive term with the extremely negative term "incel." Saying "incel" = "involuntarily celibate" to all degrees while also saying incels are awful people is the same things as saying rape victims are awful people because of their trauma, and I'm asking people to not conflate the two ideas.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> OK, so when he said:
> " Something to the effect of someone answering involuntarily celibate because he or she was raped as a child and cannot willingly engage in sex with his or her partner without suffering the psychological trauma of the past events, but wishes he or she could be intimate with the person he or she loves"
> 
> He wasn't implying the event and the term can go hand in hand?



No, I don't think he was implying that those people are "Incels" or part of that culture. I'm pretty sure he was implying that those people are involuntarily celibate.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> I would like to think that the furry fandom ISN'T just about porn and horny people trying to outdo themselves about how "unique" they are in their kinks and sexualities, who actively search out to find anyone who might find them weird just so they can act offended, play the victim card, and get a major superiority boost, but if you say that's the case, okay...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Rassah said:


> No, I don't think he was implying that those people are "Incels" or part of that culture. I'm pretty sure he was implying that those people are involuntarily celibate.


Since you find it appropriate to carry on winding me up, I'm gonna go. I'm also gonna evaluate my decision on whether to stay on this site or not.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> No, I don't think he was implying that those people are "Incels" or part of that culture. I'm pretty sure he was implying that those people are involuntarily celibate.


See, Incel is a proper noun when describing the subculture, which is why I (try) to capitalize it.
Incel subculture is different to people who do not belong to that subculture who might otherwise be celibate involuntarily.

We have a handful of subcutlures these days that take basic concepts like this and expand upon them, while others may believe in said core principles and not believe in the same extraneous things those subcultures do.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

@KD142000 don't you go leaving the site on account of any [REDACTED(s)] trying to rile you up my dude.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Since you find it appropriate to carry on winding me up, I'm gonna go. I'm also gonna evaluate my decision on whether to stay on this site or not.



Look, I fully understand your position that "incel" and "involuntarily celibate" are the same things. And I understand you trying to explain they are the same things by making it seem as if others are conflating them incorrectly. I just disagree with you that these are the same things, and I am not the only one. It's just semantics. Personal definitions. Really has nothing to do with the main topic where the definition was actually explained.

Hate to bring Goodwin into this, but This is rather similar to Nazi and Nationalist Socialist. Yes, we all know what Nazi means. Yes, we all know that Nazi is just short for nationalist socialist. But if we were to just use the definition of the terms, technically my homeland of Soviet Union was a nationalist socialist country. USSR wasn't Nazi, obviously, But they were definitely very socialist and very nationalist. P.S. I'm not saying this as politics, I am saying this as an example of terms that when shortened become colloquial meanings of something entirely different.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

Here's a couple quotes to help us communicate better.



KD142000 said:


> It's short for 'involuntary celibate'.
> I don't see how shortening the word is somehow unkind, but the full version is perfectly fine.
> But I'll apologise.





Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Incel and involuntary celibate are the SAME



This is the primary issue I take, given the following quote:



KD142000 said:


> Let's analyse this word: Incel. I-N-C-E-L. India November Charlie Echo Lima. 5 letter word. Two syllables.
> It is short for 'Involuntary Celibate'...
> 
> And I don't give a flying toss what the inventor of the word intended it to be. It's changed meaning. And it's all the incels' fault. Not ours, not yours. THEIRS. So let them live with their own fuck-ups and their own toxicity so we can all play volleyball in the sunshine and drink orange juice.
> ...



A person born with a birth defect, or had his or her genitals mutilated in some way, cannot experience arousal/impotence, suffers from emotional or mental pain or trauma, etc, any reason at all preventing sexual intercourse, who wished to be able to have sexual relations with another person is by definition involuntarily celibate. Saying "involuntarily celibate" is the exact same thing as "incel" and that incels are "resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence" is by definition saying a person born with improperly formed genitalia is all of these things.

Because again, in the words of users in this thread, "Incel and involuntary celibate are the same."

I'm only asking people to recognize the difference between literal, real involuntary celibacy and a supposed subculture of allegedly "involuntarily" sex-deprived individuals. The poll and the original post are not asking about the latter.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

I’m tempted to start posting memes like an asshole now


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Here's a couple quotes to help us communicate better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The thing is is that your definition of involuntary celibate was completely wrong.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> The thing is is that your definition of involuntary celibate was completely wrong.


It's fallacious to disregard someone's idea just because they don't explain it in a way conducive to your thinking.
OP has explained it beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't like it, that's all you.
You're free to leave at any point if you refuse to discuss the subject over semantics.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> It's fallacious to disregard someone's idea just because they don't explain it in a way conducive to your thinking.
> OP has explained it beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't like it, that's all you.
> You're free to leave at any point if you refuse to discuss the subject over semantics.


Words have _meaning._ You replace the word gay with f*g and instantly it changes the entire meaning of something.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Words have _meaning._ You replace the word gay with f*g and instantly it changes the entire meaning of something.


It's called "For the sake of discussion"
Other users of this thread admitted they don't even HAVE a word to describe what OP is saying, so we just have to go by what they say at face value and that's it.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> It's called "For the sake of discussion"
> Other users of this thread admitted they don't even HAVE a word to describe what OP is saying, so we just have to go by what they say at face value and that's it.


Come up wirh a different word because all it sounds like you guys are doing are defending mysoginists.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> The thing is is that your definition of involuntary celibate was completely wrong.



That's why he didn't just leave it as just the words by themselves, but explained his definition. It's perfectly fine to use terms and give your own definition for the context in a discussion of complex topics.



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Come up wirh a different word because all it sounds like you guys are doing are defending mysoginists.




Being unnecessarily hostile, not budging because you have to be right, mansplaining... this toxic masculinity of yours is really unbecoming.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Come up wirh a different word because all it sounds like you guys are doing are defending mysoginists.


Nobody here is doing that.
You're one of the few people who seem incapable of continuing the discussion because you refuse to move beyond semantics.
You're the poison in the well here, not the people actually moving the discussion forward.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> The thing is is that your definition of involuntary celibate was completely wrong.









I'm sorry you don't agree, but the literal meaning of "involuntarily celibate" is abstaining from sexual relations without will or conscious control.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> View attachment 92094View attachment 92095
> 
> I'm sorry you don't agree, but the literal meaning of "involuntarily celibate" is abstaining from sexual relations without will or conscious control.


If you put two words together they can have a different meaning sometimes.



Rassah said:


> That's why he didn't just leave it as just the words by themselves, but explained his definition. It's perfectly fine to use terms and give your own definition for the context in a discussion of complex topics.


Guess if in a world I didn't know about the term gay I could say f*g and no one should ever correct me. Nope. Just call everyone f*gs. Why are you so mad at me? My definition matches your word too.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Guess if in a world I didn't know about the term gay I could say f*g and no one should ever correct me. Nope. Just call everyone f*gs. Why are you so mad at me? My definition matches your word too.



Yes, if we had a discussion about different types of kindling to start a fire, and at the beginning someone describe a few terms including "fag - a bundle of sticks," I wouldn't be offended in that context, despite being a fag myself.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Come up wirh a different word because all it sounds like you guys are doing are defending mysoginists.





Now Let's say, hypothetically they couldnt come up with another word for this? And they just called them all incels what then would we do?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

No honestly the bad Shapiro meme aside I feel you on this one Ovidia.



Punji said:


> View attachment 92094View attachment 92095
> 
> I'm sorry you don't agree, but the literal meaning of "involuntarily celibate" is abstaining from sexual relations without will or conscious control.



And the meaning of other words per the dictionary until more recently still held a different meaning through more common use in society like that age old argument that came in tow with the 'gamer word' where people would argue "Oh but it only means ignorant person" when we all know through the usage of such was not quite what it meant or means or how it was implied on usage at all.
Language evolves and changed and even more so when words are paired.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Guess if in a world I didn't know about the term gay I could say f*g and no one should ever correct me. Nope. Just call everyone f*gs. Why are you so mad at me? My definition matches your word too.


We already know what that means, though.
And OP explicitly said they didn't use Incel because of the connotation that comes with it, and thus preferred to type the actual words out in a way to separate peoples.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> We already know what that means, though.
> And OP explicitly said they didn't use Incel because of the connotation that comes with it, and thus preferred to type the actual words out in a way to separate peoples.


for the 50th time incel and involuntary celibate are the same thing. In-voluntary cel-ibate


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Oct 26, 2020)

18 pages of people arguing what "incel" means?

Man, I'm glad I live in an uncivilized third-world shithole.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> View attachment 92096
> Now Let's say, hypothetically they couldnt come up with another word for this? And they just called them all incels what then would we do?
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ...


People don't like me much because I don't back down and I don't follow the status quo.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> for the 50th time incel and involuntary celibate are the same thing. In-voluntary cel-ibate


You can clap and speak slowly all you like.
You're just poisoning the discussion.

I'm done with this unintelligible nonsense. Seeya


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Incel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Incels* (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ _IN-selz_), a portmanteau of "*involuntary celibates*", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.[1][2][3] Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.[14] The American nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem" that is included in their list of hate groups.[15][16] Incels are mostly male and heterosexual,[10][12][17] and many sources report that incels are predominantly white.[18][19][20][21] Estimates of the overall size of the subculture vary greatly, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands.

________

Let us not try to cleanse and wash away what incel actually means here is quite the point that is being pressed here.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rimna said:


> 18 pages of people arguing what "incel" means?
> 
> Man, I'm glad I live in an uncivilized third-world shithole.


I forgot what country you live in


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> You can clap and speak slowly all you like.
> You're just poisoning the discussion.
> 
> I'm done with this unintelligible nonsense. Seeya


I like how I'm the unintelligible one and you can't even recognize the correct definition of something.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rimna said:


> 18 pages of people arguing what "incel" means?
> 
> Man, I'm glad I live in an uncivilized third-world shithole.


We know what Incel means.
We're trying to separate the subculture from the unfortunate people who can't actually have sex.
Like people who sat on a landmine and lived or something.
*shrug*


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> We know what Incel means.
> We're trying to separate the subculture from the unfortunate people who can't actually have sex.
> Like people who sat on a landmine and lived or something.
> *shrug*


Just flipping say "people who can't have sex" instead of attatching the word incel. Christ.


----------



## KimberVaile (Oct 26, 2020)

I think what others are trying to say is that the term has some negative _connotations_, which has some people up in arms. Though I would please advise that people try to engage in the debate with good faith, I don't think anybody here came with bad intent.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

KimberVaile said:


> I don't think anybody here came with bad intent.


At least I hope not lol
Human sexuality is something I'm interested in academically. I'd like to learn rather than stomp through the mud.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> And the meaning of other words per the dictionary until more recently still held a different meaning through more common use in society like that age old argument that came in tow with the 'gamer word' where people would argue "Oh but it only means ignorant person" when we all know through the usage of such was not quite what it meant or means or how it was implied on usage at all.
> Language evolves and changed and even more so when words are paired.



The problem with this is that "incel" is slang. "Involuntarily" and "celibate" are actual proper words with meanings both when separate and conjoined.

"Incel" means exactly one thing and "involuntarily celibate" means another.



Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Just flipping say "people who can't have sex" instead of attatching the word incel. Christ.



Your personal gripe with a slang term incorrectly associated with the accurate descriptor shouldn't dictate the vocabulary of everyone else.


----------



## Deleted member 111470 (Oct 26, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> I forgot what country you live in



Well it's a country very similar to America in the sense that it also has people in it.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Rimna said:


> Well it's a country very similar to America in the sense that it also has people in it.



Well, that rules out Sealand


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rimna said:


> Well it's a country very similar to America in the sense that it also has people in it.


I find this response oddly satisfying


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rimna said:


> Well it's a country very similar to America in the sense that it also has people in it.


Alright.
You get my daily +1
Gratz


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> The problem with this is that "incel" is slang. "Involuntarily" and "celibate" are actual proper words with meanings both when separate and conjoined.
> 
> "Incel" means exactly one thing and "involuntarily celibate" means another.


*presses lips to microphone*
they are the same words, this is like saying ancom and anarcho communists are two different meanings and things.


----------



## Fallowfox (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I'm really starting to see why the politics section was removed. Please don't get my thread locked.
> 
> As for non-celibate/conditional celibate, I personally am under the idea that having standards or a monogamous relationship are not conditional. The only thing in question for non-celibacy is can a person get sex when they desire it, not if they have to take up the first person they can find. If a person is in a solitary relationship and would only have intercourse with the sole partner, this would be classed as not celibate, in my opinion. Conditional would be more along the lines of "I will only have sex with my spouse for the intent of procreation, ceasing upon confirmation of pregnancy, and never doing so before or after unless trying for another child in the future."
> 
> ...



Humans are sexually dimorphic but not in the same way as peacocks or turkeys, in which one sex is well-camouflaged and reductive and the other sex exhibits 'handicaps' like a bright tail or head ornament to show choosy females that their genes are so good that they managed to survive despite a debilitating maladaptation.

In humans the analogues of these features occur in both sexes. Human males have larger penises than other primates and smaller testicles, and it's speculated this is a 'handicap'. By comparison human females tend to have larger breasts than other primates, despite this offering no survival advantage.

In most human societies it's male selection that rewards female beauty- which is the _reverse_ of what happens in peacocks. 

Are you happy to conclude that sexual selection in humans occurs in both sexes, and that it's not centred on female choice alone? 

A clear example might be some south-asian match-making practices, which typically privilege male choice of partner over female choice, and which may involve both dowries and or 'bride prices'.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> *presses lips to microphone*
> they are the same words, this is like saying ancom and anarcho communists are two different meanings and things.



If they were exactly the same things there wouldn't need to be different words.

But let's take a step back for a moment. You maintain that "incel" is exactly the same as "involuntarily celibate." So when I pointed out incels are said to be "resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence" this would also mean you thought a person literally incapable of sex and wished to engage in sex is also resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorses violence.

I'm sure you clearly don't hate the disabled with such a passion, but your words intentionally conflate the two as though they were inseparable. Thus the need for separation from the bitter people on the Internet's corners and the most logical, clear, accurate, and concise term for someone unable to perform sexual intercourse through no fault of their own.

A slang term mainly used by people on the Internet to disfavourably describe a subsect of people said to have unpalatable personalities does not equate to phsyiscal, mental, or emotional restrictions.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> If they were exactly the same things there wouldn't need to be different words.
> 
> But let's take a step back for a moment. You maintain that "incel" is exactly the same as "involuntarily celibate." So when I pointed out incels are said to be "resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence" this would also mean you thought a person literally incapable of sex and wished to engage in sex is also resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorses violence.
> 
> ...


It all just boils down to:
For the sake of the discussion, just use what OP means rather than what OP said. Nobody likes anyone arguing semantics in a discussion because then the discussion goes nowhere and turns it into a bloody swamp.
We know what OP means, they've explained it numerous times.
Now get on with the discussion.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

Fallowfox said:


> In most human societies it's male selection that rewards female beauty- which is the _reverse_ of what happens in peacocks.
> 
> Are you happy to conclude that sexual selection in humans occurs in both sexes, and that it's not centred on female choice alone?
> 
> A clear example might be some south-asian match-making practices, which typically privilege male choice of partner over female choice, and which may involve both dowries and or 'bride prices'.



Of course. I never said it was exclusively the female choice in humans, and directly stated the top males will have the choice as well. The best reproductive partners always get the choice because both sexes will go for the best options first.

But all this started by describing the reasoning behind the claim that females have historically had greater mating success than males even with the case of humans. Females choose but obviously the men are the ones trying to be chosen.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Hey, since we're arguing about definitions of words, because it's apparently so important, and since this is a topic about human sexuality, how about we also try to properly define what "man" and "woman" means?
> No? Don't want to touch that one?
> Then how about we move on to the actual topic. Like celibacy and how it relates to culture, nature, and nurture.



Man smash thing. 

Woman have baby. 

I have solved all world problem.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Of course. I never said it was exclusively the female choice in humans, and directly stated the top males will have the choice as well. The best reproductive partners always get the choice because both sexes will go for the best options first.
> 
> But all this started by describing the reasoning behind the claim that females have historically had greater mating success than males even with the case of humans. Females choose but obviously the men are the ones trying to be chosen.



Arranged marriages used to be a thing you know and still are in many cases.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> Man smash thing.
> 
> Woman have baby.
> 
> I have solved all world problem.


For some reason, this comment reminded me of


----------



## Deleted member 132067 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> 1) What do you call people who are celibate involuntarily? You can't call them virgins because they aren't necessarily. You can't call them abstinent, because they're not trying to be.


The people who are involuntary celibate are just that. Then there's Incels who you can think of as synonymous to sexually frustrated dirtbags. Easy.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Discussing people’s positions on celibacy to posting gorilla porn. This is the furry fandom I love.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Discussing people’s positions on celibacy to posting gorilla porn. This is the furry fandom I love.


That's not porn.
That male gorilla is literally riding her like a horse.


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> That's not porn.
> That male gorilla is literally riding her like a horse.


Ah, didn’t click. Am dumb for that


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> If they were exactly the same things there wouldn't need to be different words.
> 
> But let's take a step back for a moment. You maintain that "incel" is exactly the same as "involuntarily celibate." So when I pointed out incels are said to be "resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence" this would also mean you thought a person literally incapable of sex and wished to engage in sex is also resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorses violence.
> 
> ...


Those unable to have sex, and involuntary celibates are two different existences and groups.
again there are two different words so to speak with ancom being one and anarcho communist being another.
incel is involuntary celibate and that is through common modern usage of the terms. Do you know what comes up when you search for 'involuntary celibate'?




Actually let us look at this webmd article and see how they define involuntary celibate as the layman may look to such a source afterall



Weird this professor of psychiatry doesn't outline physical disabilities, ptsd or other entirely out of their control ailments that would literally render someone unable to voluntarily have sex in any capacity minus social anxieties.

would seem that there may be a common separation between the two per language and usage...


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> That's not porn.
> That male gorilla is literally riding her like a horse.


Though I’m willing to bet riding your partner like a horse is sexually appealing to some people, but I’m not a gorilla so idk


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

[Nexus] said:


> Though I’m willing to bet riding your partner like a horse is sexually appealing to some people, but I’m not a gorilla so idk


Pony shows are a thing ;D


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Welp...the longer this goes on, the more I'll consider straight up leaving.
Somebody had better cave, soon.

I hope you all enjoy not seeing me around. In fact, some of you probably would like it if I left.
The nicest guy you'll ever find in this fucking miserable shithole and you chase him off. Good show (!)

It's clear half of you don't know how to read or make logical deductions. Some of you go way too far.
Already happened this month, within about 4 days of this place coming back.

And some of you sit there twiddling your thumbs, watching shit unfold cos you, quite frankly, have nothing interesting going on in your lives.
Some of you derail the shit out of threads and then go to another one claiming to be the master of calm discussions.
Some of you disgust me to my very core and you're lucky you're even allowed to think for yourself.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Welp...the longer this goes on, the more I'll consider straight up leaving.
> Somebody had better cave, soon.
> 
> I hope you all enjoy not seeing me around. In fact, some of you probably would like it if I left.
> ...



Me me, I’ll cave! All my positions are shit and poorly articulated and researched! Shame on me!


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Those unable to have sex, and involuntary celibates are two different existences and groups.
> again there are two different words so to speak with ancom being one and anarcho communist being another.
> incel is involuntary celibate and that is through common modern usage of the terms. Do you know what comes up when you search for 'involuntary celibate'?
> [SNIP]
> ...



First of all, don't dodge the point. Do you believe all people unable to engage in sexual intercourse are resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence?

You typed "involuntarily celibate" but Google gave you the much more popular and click-inducing results for "incel." The WebM article you posted doesn't mention incels being this evil minority-hating woman-loathing cretins you try to pass them off as, instead it just sympathizes with them.

And of course, the literal meaning of the combination of the words "involuntary" and "celibate" is objectively abstaining from sexual intercourse against one's will.

Quite frankly it's quite obvious to me you have a problem with the demographic you call incels and this is the issue for you and nothing else. You hate the idea of that kind of person just like you hate the idea of an anarchy-loving communist, though both have the same lack of relevance to this thread. Separate your personal issues for standard vocabulary. I'll say it yet again, this thread's point isn't and never was about "incels," only about the rates and types of actual celibacy.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> First of all, don't dodge the point. Do you believe all people unable to engage in sexual intercourse are resentful, misogynistic, misanthropic, self-pitying, self-loathing, racist, feel entitled to sex, and endorse violence?
> 
> You typed "involuntarily celibate" but Google gave you the much more popular and click-inducing results for "incel." The WebM article you posted doesn't mention incels being this evil minority-hating woman-loathing cretins you try to pass them off as, instead it just sympathizes with them.
> 
> ...


Since you couldn't seem to extrapolate that by distinguishing the two groups under different titles one being involuntary celibates or incels, the misogynistic little [REDACTED], and those unable to engage in sexual intercourse. No, I do not see those unable to engage in sexual intercourse as the same as incels which is why the distinction is important.

The reason google gives incel when you look up involuntary celibate is because they are the same it would be like me googling anarcho communist and getting ancom on the page.

I never said or expressed disdain for anarcho communists  btw tbf they are actually pretty dang rad in America and have been some of my best partners in crime to prevent celibacy between us because comrades.

and yeah i have a problem with a group that is a rather vile pit like incels are. and you trying to rebrand and wash them, involuntary celibates, and trying to push those who are not incels under that umbrella as well is rather troublesome to boot.


----------



## Simo (Oct 26, 2020)

I find the term 'Involuntarily Celibate' to be quite frankly ridiculous. After all, celibacy is a deliberate choice, which implies will, or volition; the decision not to have sex, even though it remains possible, out of whatever spiritual, religious or deeply held personal philosophies. One is not celibate just because opportunities for sex don't happen by; one is celibate out of a volitional decision to be so.

What's next? "Involuntary Promiscuity"? 

I don't see any real value in lumping in those unable to find sex and seething in frustration over the fact, with those who have chosen a celibate lifestyle, such as clergy: indeed, the Incel movement is more about frustration, blaming society and whining about how unfair the world is, than it is about the virtues of celibacy.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Simo said:


> I find the term 'Involuntarily Celibate' to be quite frankly ridiculous. After all, celibacy is a deliberate choice, which implies will, or volition; the decision not to have sex, even though it remains possible, out of whatever spiritual, religious or deeply held personal philosophies. One is not celibate just because opportunities for sex don't happen by; one is celibate out of a volitional decision to be so.
> 
> What's next? "Involuntary Promiscuity"?
> 
> I don't see any real value in lumping in those unable to find sex and seething in frustration over the fact, with those who have chosen a celibate lifestyle, such as clergy: indeed, the Incel movement is more about frustration, blaming society and whining about how unfair the world is, than it is about the virtues of celibacy.


Nymphomania could be described as involuntary promiscuity, depending on who you ask


----------



## Deleted member 134556 (Oct 26, 2020)

Simo said:


> I find the term 'Involuntarily Celibate' to be quite frankly ridiculous. After all, celibacy is a deliberate choice, which implies will, or volition; the decision not to have sex, even though it remains possible, out of whatever spiritual, religious or deeply held personal philosophies. One is not celibate just because opportunities for sex don't happen by; one is celibate out of a volitional decision to be so.
> 
> What's next? "Involuntary Promiscuity"?
> 
> I don't see any real value in lumping in those unable to find sex and seething in frustration over the fact, with those who have chosen a celibate lifestyle, such as clergy: indeed, the Incel movement is more about frustration, blaming society and whining about how unfair the world is, than it is about the virtues of celibacy.


I’m not going to agree or disagree with this. I just want to let you know we always enjoy seeing you on here ^^


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

Considering leaving this place and perhaps the fandom if it comes to it.
I've never been so hurt, insulted, betrayed and ignored in such a short space of time, before.

I tried to use logic...it failed. I tried using decent arguments...it failed. I tried giving people the benefit of the doubt...it failed.

Disappointed in some of you. And not at all surprised by others.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

KD142000 said:


> Considering leaving this place and perhaps the fandom if it comes to it.
> I've never been so hurt, insulted, betrayed and ignored in such a short space of time, before.
> 
> I tried to use logic...it failed. I tried using decent arguments...it failed. I tried giving people the benefit of the doubt...it failed.


KD, please stop posting on these types of threads, where that kind of stuff will probably happen. There is so much better in the fandom.


----------



## KD142000 (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> KD, please stop posting on these types of threads, where that kind of stuff will probably happen. There is so much better in the fandom.


Fine. I'll stop bothering. Good day.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Oct 26, 2020)

Someone mentioned "Incel's" and one appeared from the woodworks ready to defend themselves and their gross behaviour. Speak of the devil, and he shall appear and all that. Uh, but to get back to what this thread was _actually _supposed to be about, I feel like I'd be a celibate person. I don't really know if I'll ever have sex or if I want to. i hate the idea of people touching me in that way, and I'm only comfortable with cuddling which isn't very sexual. 

I still watch porn, but yeah i don't think I'll ever actually do the sex thing


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> Since you couldn't seem to extrapolate that by distinguishing the two groups under different titles one being involuntary celibates or incels, the misogynistic little [REDACTED], and those unable to engage in sexual intercourse. No, I do not see those unable to engage in sexual intercourse as the same as incels which is why the distinction is important.
> 
> The reason google gives incel when you look up involuntary celibate is because they are the same it would be like me googling anarcho communist and getting ancom on the page.
> 
> ...



Great, we're making progress, you and I. 

That's the point. They're not the same and they were never the same.

Oh, didn't you? I guess I assumed so because I rarely hear positive opinions on either ideology. But that's for a different thread on a forum that still has it's politics subforum, not here. Savvy?

Cool, have your issues with them. But recognize this thread isn't talking about them and never was. I'm distinctly drawing a clear and bold line in "incel" and "involuntarily celibate" where one is the group you hate so dearly and the other is purely a descriptor of one's state of undesired celibacy regardless of reason.

All the evils in the world don't equate to being unable to have sexual relationships. The failure to differentiate this despite repeated efforts to steer back towards the one single objective of this thread isn't helping anyone. You don't agree with the separation, fine. You don't have to. But respect the stated definition for the descriptive term employed solely for the purposes of directing answers in a poll or simply don't bother with the thread.

Simply put you're assuming malicious intent where none exists and erroneously conflating a previously defined descriptor accurate to the language as a concept you vehemently oppose, and it's distracting you and by extent my thread from the single main point.

For perhaps one final time, "involuntarily celibate" literally means abstaining from sexual relations without will or conscious control. This the same idea the thread opened with and all I and the poll care about. I already specifically stated I recognized a difference between this definition and the concept of an "incel," and that I had intended this difference.

Again, you don't have to agree with me, but I do expect a degree of mutual cooperation in a discussion and not a repeated derailment. You're barking up the wrong thread with this and spawning needless drama over a non-existent slight.


----------



## Lucyfur (Oct 26, 2020)

For the sake of comparisson to what you are doing.

I have provided that in common language involuntary celibate is incel.
we have established incels are rather terribly toxic chud womblers yes?
You are trying to say that for this we will use involuntary celibate in x manner not as fits the common language usages of the term.

This is infact washing and cleansing that term to try and pivot it to something it is not.

That is like me starting a discussion and trying to use a volatile groups name as the label for a group unrelated to them.
it may not be my goal to rebrand this and wash the taint of that clean, but it is what is inadvertently happening here and what is being pointed out as the issue.

Just use a different term.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> Great, we're making progress, you and I.
> 
> That's the point. They're not the same and they were never the same.
> 
> ...


At this point, just let it go.
Thread is thoroughly derailed anyways.

Not worth the energy imo


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

LucyTheDumbYeen said:


> For the sake of comparisson to what you are doing.
> 
> I have provided that in common language involuntary celibate is incel.
> we have established incels are rather terribly toxic chud womblers yes?
> ...



No. That's like saying an apple is the same thing as an apple pie. Both have similarities in that one eventually leads to the other with a whole lot of steps and ingredients, but the two are fundamentally different.

Common language follows the pattern of combining words to form meaning based on the independent definitions of each word. "Rotten" for example can mean a few different things, as can "fruit." But when the two are placed together as a subject and a descriptor, "rotten fruit" has exactly one real meaning. Common language is what two words will mean when placed together. A person without internet access probably isn't going to hold the same negative connotations to "involuntarily celibate" as you do, and would instead base his or her understanding of the concept based on how the two words interact. It's just the way words describe things.

By your logic it's "cleansing" and "re-branding" incels by calling them the long-handed term "involuntarily celibate." This makes no sense. I only seek to isolate the "incels" and the involuntarily celibate.

Why? Why use a different term? No only is there no given argument for this, as I'd said verbatim "involuntarily celibate" is literally the most accurate and concise term for a person able who is literally unable to perform sexual intercourse. It would be more apporpriate to just call "incels" something else.



Toby_Morpheus said:


> At this point, just let it go.
> Thread is thoroughly derailed anyways.
> 
> Not worth the energy imo



Eh, I suppose so.

Still, I'm happy with the turnout for the polls, I was hoping for at most 30. Though I did unfortunately witness an event in the numbers which I don't believe was happy one. Hopefully not because of the events of this thread.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> Hey, since we're arguing about definitions of words, because it's apparently so important, and since this is a topic about human sexuality, how about we also try to properly define what "man" and "woman" means?
> No? Don't want to touch that one?
> Then how about we move on to the actual topic. Like celibacy and how it relates to culture, nature, and nurture.


That's just a dick move right there. For those that don't know what just happened, he just made a shot at me being transgender. Thanks man.


----------



## tamara590 (Oct 26, 2020)

im demisexual so i opted voluntarily celibate.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Oct 26, 2020)

yall are derailing this sort of cool topic by arguing about dumbass semantics oh my god.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Liseran Thistle said:


> yall are derailing this sort of cool topic by arguing about dumbass semantics oh my god.


This is what the political section was before it got wiped off the face of the earth


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> This is what the political section was before it got wiped off the face of the earth


Old habits die hard


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> Old habits die hard



They deleted the politics section but didn’t delete the members or their terrible moderation.


----------



## Toasty9399 (Oct 26, 2020)

Liseran Thistle said:


> yall are derailing this sort of cool topic by arguing about dumbass semantics oh my god.


I feel your pain



VeeStars said:


> This is what the political section was before it got wiped off the face of the earth





Toby_Morpheus said:


> Old habits die hard


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Literally 20 pages, you guys must really be bored :/


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

VeeStars said:


> Literally 20 pages, you guys must really be bored :/


At least we COULD blame the virus if it wasn't like this before January this year lol


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> You mean rape? Or sex slavery? We have terms for those too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gender has evolved. And incels have too. Which the current definition for incel is not good. Sorry I don't take a random furry's definition over the widely accepted one.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

I wonder how many of those who are involuntarily celibate are only that throughout the year, but are not that once or twice a year at cons?
That may be a different data point though.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> I wonder how many of those who are involuntarily celibate are only that throughout the year, but are not that once or twice a year at cons?
> That may be a different data point though.


I don't think that'd count.
Count for being involuntary, anyways


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Oct 26, 2020)

Why is this even a shitshow? wtf


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

Frank Gulotta said:


> Why is this even a shitshow? wtf


I have a feeling this thread will be locked, super mega derailed


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Toby_Morpheus said:


> I don't think that'd count.
> Count for being involuntary, anyways



It could mean either that cons are very promiscuous places in general, or that cons are full of people who are otherwise also shy and awkward but can still hook up there.

Oh, that reminds me, one other factor to be considered is age. It is much easier to find somebody to hook up with if you are a sexy horny 20-year-old, than if you are an older 40 or 50-year-old who still has all the same awkwardness issues. Especially in the gay scene.


----------



## Toby_Morpheus (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> It could mean either that cons are very promiscuous places in general, or that cons are full of people who are otherwise also shy and awkward but can still hook up there.
> 
> Oh, that reminds me, one other factor to be considered is age. It is much easier to find somebody to hook up with if you are a sexy horny 20-year-old, than if you are an older 40 or 50-year-old who still has all the same awkwardness issues. Especially in the gay scene.


I dunno, it depends.
Older men are generally preferred more than older women, at least in our average, straight brethren.

Even here at the local gay clubs, we have a lot of older bears who come in on bear/cub night.


----------



## Punji (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> It could mean either that cons are very promiscuous places in general, or that cons are full of people who are otherwise also shy and awkward but can still hook up there.
> 
> Oh, that reminds me, one other factor to be considered is age. It is much easier to find somebody to hook up with if you are a sexy horny 20-year-old, than if you are an older 40 or 50-year-old who still has all the same awkwardness issues. Especially in the gay scene.



I did consider age initially, but I decided against it. However next time I should have to consider promiscuity at cons as the focal point.

I've never been to a con before, but I have conducted a lot of, ehm, research, on what may or may not go on in hotel rooms. This was no doubt a significant influence on my creation of this thread.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I did consider age initially, but I decided against it. However next time I should have to consider promiscuity at cons as the focal point.
> 
> I've never been to a con before, but I have conducted a lot of, ehm, research, on what may or may not go on in hotel rooms. This was no doubt a significant influence on my creation of this thread.



I bet it’s all dude furries tho. All the female furries are scared and don’t talk because they get hit on by a thousand lonely straight furs.


----------



## Deleted member 115426 (Oct 26, 2020)

Rassah said:


> You mean rape? Or sex slavery? We have terms for those too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Also men use the word dick move all the time. Don't make up shit on the spot like calling something sexist when I'm not. I'm getting flashbacks to when someone called the words Trash Man sexist. Which it's not. It's a meme. Just like dick move is a common insult used by both sexes.


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

I knew this thread would be comedy gold I can feel so much butthurt. Some people love being butthurt. They want it harder. Harder daddy! Okay I’ll stop.


----------



## VeeStars (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I knew this thread would be comedy gold I can feel so much butthurt. Some people love being butthurt. They want it harder. Harder daddy! Okay I’ll stop.


*glares*


----------



## Kharne (Oct 26, 2020)

I thought this thread would derail but I couldn't have imagined it'd get this bad. 

Nothing wrong with being celibate, nothing wrong with not being celibate. If you have consent and practice safe sex go buck wild.


----------



## TyraWadman (Oct 26, 2020)

*Spends 4ever reading to catch up*

SO WAIT
My answer is different now? I'm confuuuuuuuuused. 
I wanna share myself with one person and one person only. Whether or not they end up being my soulmate is up in the air, but that would make me Not Celibate? Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurgh. I can't undo my vote either way.



Spoiler



The politics section disappearing has nothing to do with this topic in particular, but the same damn people attempting to police everything (and more than likely spamming the report button...and Nazis). I love discussion. You can discuss things without bleeding from your asshole though. Debate. Use everything you can to convince/persuade someone, but know when to let go if you can't. 

I'm beginning to see and understand the bitterness and y'all can have your grudges for whatever happened 10 years ago like kids, but that doesn't mean you should destroy every thread because it doesn't cater to your wants and needs. The same people are doing this and I'd hate to relocate just to have any semblance of a discussion that doesn't involve tagging all of your friends to come and paint over everything. You aren't doing this to protect any kids because you literally have pages of text showing our discussions. You weren't in it to stand up for those being oppressed and this wasn't some sort of collaboration to normalize an unsavory word. 

Tired of this shit, yo. You all literally have your spanking/game threads and furry related stuff. Let us having something, too.


----------



## Deleted member 127940 (Oct 26, 2020)

Ovidia Dragoness said:


> Sorry I don't take a random furry's definition over the widely accepted one.



You're finally starting to feel how _I_ feel!

Good!


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

TyraWadman said:


> *Spends 4ever reading to catch up*
> 
> SO WAIT
> My answer is different now? I'm confuuuuuuuuused.
> ...



This forum doesn’t know structured, meaningful debate. It never has and it never will because everyone here is a dumb kid (no offense to the actual dumb kids here) trying to “score” in quasi intellectual arguments.


----------



## MaelstromEyre (Oct 26, 2020)

SwiftDog said:


> I bet it’s all dude furries tho. All the female furries are scared and don’t talk because they get hit on by a thousand lonely straight furs.



Desperate guys are just repulsive to be around in any setting, but they're even worse in the fandom.


----------



## Rassah (Oct 26, 2020)

Punji said:


> I've never been to a con before, but I have conducted a lot of, ehm, research, on what may or may not go on in hotel rooms. This was no doubt a significant influence on my creation of this thread.



As far as I know, "Random Dildo Vibrator Twister" game is a myth...


----------



## SwiftDog (Oct 26, 2020)

MaelstromEyre said:


> Desperate guys are just repulsive to be around in any setting, but they're even worse in the fandom.



I’m bored and lonely too but I try to keep my willy in my pants it has a mind of its own.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 26, 2020)

Locking this for review.


----------

