Concerning Incels

This article details my thoughts on incels. I discuss the social phenomenon of incels, and the broader phenomenon of young men who are considered unattractive. I further make the argument that the way society treats these men is unacceptable. Finally, I will discuss my personal experience and philosophy on living a good life, in spite of these issues.

The word “Incel” refers to two related but distinct groups.

On the one hand, “Incel” is a portmanteau of the words “involuntarily celibate”. In the most literal definition of the term, this a person who desires sex, but is unable to have it. However, generally “celibate” is defined loosely - we really mean intimate romantic relationships, whether it is sexual or not. Let's be clear - everyone who desires this but hasn't had it is an incel, by definition.

On the other hand, “Incel” also refers to a group of men defined by a set of general ideologies, as well as the circumstance of being involuntarily celibate. There is no book of incel-dom, nor is there any real cultural focal point for them. This can really be attributed to the fact that the culture of incels has been formed online, which is by nature democratic, and is the manifestation of many people's personal interpretations of their life merged into one.

The relationship between the two “Incel”s is the same as the relationship between a people group and their culture. For example, “African-American” clearly refers to a people group that is defined by some unifying factors - people who are black and who live in America. However, there is also a culture that is unique to African-Americans. Like incels, there is no word for a person who is a part of “African-American Culture”¹⁾, despite the fact that there are African-Americans that do not.

For the purposes of this article, I will call people who part of the distinct group of men “cultural incels”, and I will call people who are just involuntarily celibate just “incels”.

Why are there so many male incels? Let me be very clear - there is such a thing as a female incel. This might seem strange to the seasoned internet veteran, but consider, for example, the body positivity movement. To a certain extent, isn't this movement a movement of women who are trying to build confidence in their bodies, due to a perceived lack of interest from men? Despite this, the data is clear - there's a ton of men that are not in a relationship.

To answer this, we must consider the nature of the sexual dyad and it's significance. Male sex cells, sperm, are very inexpensive and can be produced quickly. Female sex cells, eggs, however, are much more expensive, as they contain not only genetic information but also nourishment for the resulting embryo. This is true of all dyadic animals, though for mammals it requires even more of a time investment, because the embryo must be grown within the animal.

Now, the ultimate goal of both male and female is to produce as many offspring as possible. Therefore, the optimal male strategy is to impregnate as many females as possible without taking care of the baby. This is clearly a raw deal for the female, however, and the female therefore has the impetus to choose the mate with the highest fitness (to ensure a baby that can survive and reproduce) and who is most able to provide for the baby.

Now, what I have described is not a series of conscious decisions being made by Machiavellian actors but rather an evolutionary game stretching back eons over millions of generations. Different animals have different sexual behaviors that seem to be loosely connected to their biology. Some animals, like walruses, have a harem structure. Other animals, like birds, are monogamous. Humans are mostly monogamous, as is evidenced by the emotional bond made between man and woman, through the chemical oxytocin.

Monogamy is an excellent way to produce a lot of offspring. Male and Female are given a division of labor in the reproductive process. Males are providers, and Females nurture the young. It is feasible for the male to provide everything for his dependents, allowing the females to focus their energy on their young. This is essential because human babies come out of the womb with absolutely no way to take care of themselves, due to the fact that our brains prioritize learning ²⁾. We also are born with massive brains that require taking a huge amount of energy from other parts of the body that would be used for survival purposes.

The traditional gender role that society ascribed to women in the past was similar to the evolutionary role that I ascribed above, and for pretty good reason. For most of history, “work” entailed physical labor, which slotted nicely into the role men already had as providers. For example, farming was backbreaking labor, and mostly relegated to men. As a result, women had little chance of survival outside of marriage.

However, as technology progressed, the role of the manual laborer became less relevant. Instead, “work” might mean sitting in an office crunching numbers, or writing reports, or even running businesses. All of these things are things that women are just as suited to as men are, so it didn't make sense to exclude women from work. Because of this, women are now able to provide for themselves, meaning that marriage is no longer strictly necessary for survival.

With this newfound freedom came a shift in what women found to be important and valuable. No longer did they fantasize about having a family or impressing a man, they instead fantasized on their potential as members of society, in the same way that men do. They wanted to be doctors, scientists, businesswomen – and they could! Thus, women desire being in a relationship less now than before.

I mention this because many people believe that our value structure exists independently from society. In my opinion, nothing could be less true. For example, the idea of freedom as an ideal is relatively new, so expecting an ancient man to value it as much as we do seems a bit silly to me. The same goes for the things women valued in the past. I don't think they thought of themselves as being under the thumb of men, but instead really did value the idea of having a family.

Without the necessity or the desire to have a family, the idea of monogamy seems obsolete. Even though humans are monogamous by nature, the social structure of relationships have changed such that seeking pleasure only is acceptable. This has formed a sort of “poly-monogamy”, where people have many short-term monogamous relationships with a number of other people. Now, due to to sexual dynamic as described above, the result is that a large group of women end up in relationships with a much smaller group of men, leading to the imbalance in genders having sex.

Given the facts that I listed above, it is clear that the root cause of inceldom is women having more freedom and not being forced into relationships. Although the concept of tradeoffs is foreign to modern people, this is objectively a good thing. Clearly, a group of people wanting to do something but not being able to is better than a group of people not wanting to do something but being forced to. By the same token, it's better that our society has people that wish to live in a pure society but don't, than to force people to partake in a pure society when they do not wish to. This is why we have separation of church and state.

In more ways than one, poverty is to an economic freedom what inceldom is to sexual freedom.

Of course it's worse to be poor than to be an incel. The consequences of being an incel are psychological, while the consequences of being poor are both psychological and physical. The point that I'm trying to make is that they both fall into the same general category, and to be morally consistent requires thinking about the poor as you would incels.

I am a Capitalist, that is, I am opposed to Communism, that is, I am opposed to the forceful redistribution of wealth. I'm opposed to Communism for two reasons. First, it has failed every time it has been tried. This position is what I call Pragmatic Capitalism. Secondly, I believe that it is unethical. This position is what I call Ethical Capitalism.

As in my article about abortion, I can use a Belief Summary to explain Ethical Capitalism:

Succinctly, it is good to give, but wrong to take. Meanwhile, Communism is very nearly the opposite.

That is, it is wrong to not give.

Here is a simple argument in favor of Ethical Capitalism, not intended to convert communists but rather to explain my position. A man can be said to said to be the owner of his mind, as no one can control it. As the owner of his mind, it is right that he should also be the owner of his body. As the owner of his body, it is right that he should be owner of those things that extend his body, that is, his land, his house, his money, etc.

How is this relevant? Well, in more ways than one, capitalism is similar to how sex works in the modern era.

Let us, therefore, lay out the dual of the two economic theories. First, Sexual Capitalism. In this system, the most important virtue is that people are free to make their own decisions about who they enter into relationships with, and the nature of those relationships. This is the system that exists now.

Naturally, the competing theory is Sexual Communism. In this system, a “fair” distribution is enforced. That is, everyone is guaranteed a relationship, although it may not be with who you want. The “sexual bourgeoise” will be forced by some third party to surrender to the “sexual proletariat”.

Let me very, very clear: Obviously that is a fucking horrible idea. It is so deeply immoral that it should cause instant revulsion in most. Despite this, the “incel culture”, as I defined it above, sometimes finds this idea to be a good one. To them I ask: Is that a morally consistent position? That is, are you also an economic communist? Are you using your body and possessions to benefit the less fortunate? Of course you aren't, at least, not in any meaningful way. You are not a communist, you are a looter - you're only in it to benefit yourself, not out of genuine ethical consideration.

However, consider the fact that sexual capitalism requires the existence of incels, just as economic capitalism requires the existence of the poor. In the same way that a physically weaker person won't get chosen for a job if a stronger person has also applied, if people have free choice in their relationships, then, naturally, there are going to be people that don't get chosen. This is the cost of living in a free and ethical society.

Of course it's worse to be poor than to be an incel. The consequences of being an incel are psychological, while the consequences of being poor are both psychological and physical. The point that I'm trying to make is that they both fall into the same general category, and to be morally consistent requires thinking about incels as you would the poor.

There is this modern idea that if something is pretty good, but has a tradeoff, that means it isn't good. That is, modern people aren't willing to accept mostly good, we expect things to be perfect or we label them bad. In general, it's good that we think this way, as it encourages innovation. At the same time, nothing is ever without consequences.

Sexual Capitalism is a good idea, but incels prove it is flawed. If we are unable to accept anything less than perfection in our ideas, we have two options: Abandon the idea in search of a perfect one (and there aren't any), or minimize the problem, so as to continue living as if it were perfect.

One minimization technique is to assert that incels themselves are to blame. One might call this the “Bootstraps” approach. Like poverty, this may be true in some circumstances, but not in all circumstances. For example, some incels are overweight, and this can certainly be fixed with dieting and exercise. By wearing more fashionable clothes, getting a haircut, etc one might improve their chances.

However, there are things that can't be changed. It doesn't matter how much you work out or how muscular you are, if you were 5'0“ before, you'll be 5'0” after. Same goes for ugly faces. Also, some people are nuerodivergent, which causes them trouble. Autistic people, for instance, have a lot of trouble interacting with others. Some people have social anxiety, which means that, despite possibly being a very good person, they would struggle with the initial stages of flirting.

When this fails, the next strategy is dehumanization. By mocking, trolling, or in general looking down upon a person, it's possible to subconsciously assign him the status of “less than human”, and therefore reduce empathy for him.