Right, incels have no advocates because of the universal hatred for low-status men and we will receive no future support. Heck, some twitter harpy wanted to genocide us.

I say fuck the world and do what you want while you're still alive and healthy.

Incels could have advocates if they would stop pushing everyone away with their rude behaviour... Oh, and stop acting like the bogeymen people portray them as. That would help too.

Agreed. There are more palatable methods of sharing the black pill than "fuck off normie"

You have people that sympathize with you, but 'advocates'? If you're looking for someone else to convince a woman to sleep with you I don't think much will ever change. Unless you want to be the next HR poster in the breakroom everyone rolls their eyes at?

All that’s needed is to remove government programs that severely tilt the mating playing field in favor of females. Who’s going to object to increased equality?

or fembots not having the right to vote wasnt going to kill them lol

Why do we have gay marriage rights? Are they going to die without marriage?

The issue is one of equality, sure, but it's not to do with anything at a legal level of inequality. Blacks were legislated against. Incels are not.

What you are facing is personal prejudice, just as blacks still face racism.

No-fault divorce is legislation against incels.

How?

The sexual revolution is rooted in the destruction of marriage in legislation. The sexual revolution results in the existence of large numbers of incels.

There has been no destruction of marriage in legislation. It's all still there the same as it's always been.

It's just the rise in sexual behaviour because of contraceptives and falling moral standards that have seen a slackening of people getting married and more people just living together.

It's all still there the same as it's always been

Are you saying that the laws relating to marriage are the same as they have always been? That's not true. Thanks for arguing.

It may have been added to for same-sex couples, but it's pretty much the same as always for Heteros.

Are you saying they changed those laws then?

"No-fault divorce" and "spousal "rape"" are two direct examples. But you cannot deny that monogamy has gone from an absolute institution to a faded one.

"No fault divorce" means neither party is at fault when they separate. I could have done with that as a reason when I split with H1. As it was we went with adultery, and I took the blame (despite it not happening) because it was the easiest way to do it.

Spousal rape is still rape. Wives are not chattel, and men do not have carte blanche to fuck them any time they want to, even against the will of the woman.

I think there's a difference in how monogamy is viewed, because it used to be staying with one man for your life, but now it's being faithful to the guy you are with at the time.

because it used to be staying with one man for your life, but now it's being faithful to the guy you are with at the time.

Both are rare at this point, and it is entirely as a result of the shift in law and zeitgeist.

Men do not have bodily autonomy over their wives. They are not objects or possessions to be used at an owner's whim. A wife is a human being and as such should not be subjected to abuse and rape.

Men do not have bodily autonomy over their wives

Not what St. Paul says, and I respect him a bit more than I respect you.

Oh, stuff written down a couple of thousand years ago and translated, retranslated, rewritten by the Catholic church who were rabidly against women, changed to suit an English king, then transferred into modern language has more bearing on a human being than an actual human being with feelings?

It's like saying that you should be taxed for being over the age of 18 and unmarried, because the Romans put a tax on unmarried men.

It has absolutely no bearing in modern life.

It has absolutely no bearing in modern life.

Why not? All you've told me is that it's old, that's not an argument. St. Paul actually substantiates all his arguments, that's what I like so much about him.

So you're basing your views of bodily autonomy on the teachings of a misogynist schizophrenic who heard voices and ascribed them to a "sky fairy", who then wrote it all down, which then got picked apart by a misogynist Church in order to keep women as slaves, and which then got picked apart by a King in the late 16th/early 17th century...

Okay...

I think I'll stick with being an atheist and seeing people as equals who have their own bodily autonomy...

Again, ad hom.

How? That's an exact representation of the book your views come from. I disagree with it, hence my atheism and view that people have a right to decline to consent to sex.

the book your views come from

That's why it's ad hom. You attack where it comes from, not what it is.

The argument is that some guy who has probably been mistranslated to hell and back, who was a complete misogynist decided that women were chattel to be used as the "owner" liked.

How about if we said that as your parents "own" you, they can do what they like to you and wouldn't get accused of child abuse or anything?

probably been mistranslated to hell and back

The notable thing about the Bible is that it's the best instance of this not happening.

was a complete misogynist decided that women were chattel to be used as the "owner" liked

He also said the reverse for men unto their wives. St. Paul, what a terrible misandrist.

How about if we said that as your parents "own" you, they can do what they like to you and wouldn't get accused of child abuse or anything?

Laws against spousal abuse and child abuse both existed while there was no law against spousal "rape".

So you don't see "rape" as abuse then?

And the bible has been translated, copied, come from word of mouth, picked apart by cardinals and Kings, whittled down from several hundred different sources... It's hardly pure.

So you don't see "rape" as abuse then?

I don't see rape as a possibility in a marriage.

It's hardly pure

It's exceptional for how pure of a historical document it is despite it's age.

If assault is possible, then so is rape. Rape is sexual assault.

A distinction has been held historically, and I agree with that distinction.

A distinction was held historically about slavery too. Own any of those?

Nah, I wouldn't mind a couple though tbh.

Ah yes, theocratic morality. Different from any form of morality tied to independent thought because the only justification needed to show something is 'good' is that God's supposed representative gave me the ol thumbs up.

I see you enjoy pointing out different types of fallacies below. In case you're wondering, your St Paul comment is an appeal to authority fallacy. If I tried to tell you that you were wrong by quoting a prominent figure from another religion, you probably wouldn't give a shit as it would be completely irrelevant to you as that isn't where you get your instructions feeding you what to believe is right or wrong. Something to keep in mind when bringing your faith up in a debate unless you're talking to another Christian.

You miss the bit where I said I like St.Paul because he makes arguments?

Yes I do.

Then why are you incel? Idiot.

I'm not

So... a rapist then?

By that logic If I have a kid it's my kid so I can just blow his fucking head of cause he's my kid so I get to do what I want with him. Marriage doesn't mean you have bought a person, the person still exists once they are married, and you're retarded for trying to argue that a husband can fuck his wife whenever he wants.

By that logic If I have a kid it's my kid so I can just blow his fucking head of cause he's my kid so I get to do what I want with him

Read the rest of the chain, I already addressed that.

I think these disruptive feminists ought to barred. They contribute nothing and only exist to derail important conversation. Often they do so while being paid with men’s tax dollars.

Derail important conversation? HA! You don't think discussing the relative merits of the bible versus secular law regarding spousal rape to be important?

its over from me. being black and an incel.

If bathrooms were sentient beings that could have a preference over who they want inside them, you wouldn't be a complete moron for making this argument.

In this reality however, you are a complete moron for making this argument.

If I take your point, you're making the comparison between "not having sex when you want to sucks but won't kill you" and "being discriminated against sucks but won't kill you."

Okay, a lot of things suck but won't kill you. Many of them outside of your or anyone else's control. When you bring up comparisons to civil rights, it's easy to assume a desire to force social changes to rectify the situation, but if we're just whining about stuff that sucks but won't kill you, I don't see the point.

Meh, it started as a novelty account for answering Askreddit questions with shit like "doesn't matter, we're all going to die." I kinda got bored with that and started using this as my main.

I'm 100% on board that people should not think less of anyone because they haven't had sex. Furthermore, "status" shouldn't be connected to sex. Even furthermore, most concepts of "status" are things we, as a society could do without, but I digress...

Yes, you are entitled to have a chance at a relationship, and you have that chance. No, you are not entitled to kindness from anyone, but being kind is its own reward, so I'd advise everyone do it. This has nothing to do with sex though.

On the other hand, when you're capable of non-ironically using the phrase "sexual redistribution," you come off as pathetic and disturbed. If that's not a euphamism for legalized rape, I'd like you to explain what it is.

Yes, there was a time I wanted sex but had not had it. It went on long enough that I concluded it would never happen. This wasn't a happy time for me at all, but I never concluded it was society's fault or that I was being victimized, I just hadn't found someone yet who wanted to have sex with me, and in a world where most people don't want to have sex with most people, this wasn't a surprising situation to be in.

Derail important conversation? HA! You don't think discussing the relative merits of the bible versus secular law regarding spousal rape to be important?