copb.phoenix wrote:You know, the MRAs have some valid points
I don't consider myself an "MRA". I support the right of all people to live, regardless of gender.
copb.phoenix wrote:1. There is an inherent assumption in incel rhetoric that you have to be forced to be celibate in order to be celibate;
No. Voluntary Celibacy is a thing. Priests and Ascetics have been doing it for thousands of years. And there are also people who are just plain asexual. They aren't forced to be celibate. But it's a very different thing for someone who very much wishes to have a relationship, but cannot because of rejection.
copb.phoenix wrote:2. Therefore there must be an assumption that there is something you should have;
It is an essential need for human beings to be loved. Even a lot of animals have this need as well. It may be less important than food or air, but it is still a need nonetheless. It is a need, because people who are unloved will often become suicidal as a result. The suicide rate of men is higher than it is for women, just like how 90% of the porn audience is men. So there's something going on here. And people seem to be too uncomfortable to talk about it, but it's a very real problem in modern society.
copb.phoenix wrote:3. Therefore - because it requires another person by its real world nature - there must be an assumption that someone owes you something;
The exact same argument applies to universal health care. Advocates of universal health care say that people have a right to the service of others that is paid for by others.
copb.phoenix wrote:4. However, this cannot be - nobody owes you anything (least of all a woman her love or body);
I'm not saying anyone has a right to a woman's love or body. That would be slavery. You completely misunderstand what I'm trying to say here. I'm not saying that a woman's love or a body is a right. All I'm saying is that it is a need. People have a need to be loved. They don't have a right to being loved by anyone. But they do have a need to be loved. Does that make sense?
copb.phoenix wrote:5. This ilustrates a logical contradiction in the incel narrative once applied in the real world
QEF. Therefore there is a flaw somewhere in the incel rhetoric.
No. Not really. It's just because you misunderstood the difference between a right and a need. People need to be loved, even if they don't have a right to it or are entitled to it. They can be kicked to the curb to either kill themselves or marry a fictional character, as many of them do. No one is required to help them, just as no one has any obligation to give money to a beggar on the street. I'm not saying they have a right to be helped or that anyone should. But that doesn't mean they don't need to be loved, regardless of whether they're entitled to it.
copb.phoenix wrote:A woman doesn't necessarily owe it to anyone. She can do what she wants. Her body, her heart, her life.
I agree. But the thing is, there are fewer women than there are men, so women hold all the cards. Men are merely beggars. There were times in history where this was not the case. Such as after WW2, when a lot of men died off, and then at that time men held the cards and women might end up as incels and spinsters because there weren't enough men to go around. Now it's the opposite. A "spinster" is basically the female version of an incel. Women don't get called that these days, though. You don't read about women marrying fictional pokemon characters and such these days. They don't need to.
Now, if you could go back in time to 1946 or whatever when there were all these involuntarily celibate women who could not find husbands, would you tell them they don't have a right to be loved or whatever? It's true, they don't have a RIGHT to be loved. But they do have a need. Because women also have a need to be loved, as men do.
