Why the Term “Incel” Inherently Means Anti Sexual Consent

And Why We Need to Responsibly Highlight This

An online subculture — whose discovery by mainstream media has been a surprise to all — has been the topic of discussion on issues of human needs and human rights. The term “incel” is short for “involuntarily celibate” and has been a label that a rare few individuals have come to personally identify with. Those who identify with the term claim that no other person (at least not someone on their “level”), will sexually engage with them. These individuals choose to label this as fundamentally unfair, insisting that cooperation for sex should be a right based on human needs.

Although an intentionally manipulative phrasing, “involuntarily celibate,” doesn’t fool most people about the underlying sexual entitlement of the term — but a minute few still have trouble grappling with the implications. One can easily fall for the sympathy trap. “They [incels] didn’t choose this life of rejection — I feel bad, they deserve love too!” It’s important to clarify the misconceptions of the term and understand the real assertions that come of it: “incel” inherently means anti-consent. In this way we can shut down any entertained sympathy for the incel in future discussions.

“Involuntarily celibate” is an oxymoron which pushes the backward idea that a person must “consent” to a sexless life.

While a person can have negative feelings about their lack of a sex life, it doesn’t change the fact that everyone who is not actively having sex right now is, in a way, celibate. The difference is most people aren’t thinking obsessively about not having sex in the same manner as a self-identified incel. The base standard is that it’s normal to not be having sex right this moment. When the lack of sex isn’t consciously thought about every passing second, a person is not “willing” celibacy of their own volition, nor are they “unwilling” it.

You’re not born having sex. You don’t have to be willing, or unwilling, as this is how life begins and is the general status quo. Having sex is the activity that people need to be willing for and also have consent for — not the time that goes by without it.

Human rights can’t extend to cover access to sexual compliance from others. It’s impossible.

Termed as an ongoing social issue, and a personal affliction against a small minority, the incel subculture attempts to piggy-back on present sympathies for legitimate human rights plights. This is done in the face of their message that it is wrong for them to be rejected for sex — and the contradiction of the fact that all human rights originate out of the principle rights of autonomy. Sexual consent is the most fundamental protection of those rights and cannot be denied if human rights are to exist at all.

Human rights cannot extend to cover access to another person’s compliance for sex. This is because sex is not a utility that one can be entitled to, and an entitlement which breaks the autonomy guranteed to another by their human right is effectively a nullification of that right altogether.

Celibacy doesn’t denote a lack of love or life satisfaction. Neither love nor sex are “needs.”

While sex can be a loving and connecting activity, not all sex is loving. A lack of love cannot be reasonably solved with sex, and a lack of sex does not mean a person is cut off from love. Although sometimes an incorrect culturally reinforced notion, neither sex nor love are primary factors for a full and happy life. It’s connection that is a human need, and sex and love often simply come to represent common ways people choose to connect.

Human connection requires its own openness of individuals — its own mutual consent — and if forced by any means, it ceases to have value and be authentic. Connection can happen in small or significant ways, and is a fundamentally asexual concept. It only seldom occurs through sexual channels. The irony arising out of much of the incel ideology is that the talking points of being “wronged” by rejection or “denied” sexual attention, love, or affection, reveal the underlying entitlement that says the sought-after “connection” must come as demanded. It’s not connection, though, what is demanded is compliance.

It is because of these realizations that we need to call out the term “incel” for what it really is and clarify this meaning in our language to responsibly inform readers. “Involuntarily celibate” attempts to shift the burden of needing consent for sex to a burden of needing consent for sexlessness which is fundamentally wrong. It tries to draw on the empathy of people through a tricky, hidden premise that links sex with love. And finally, it works to abolish the rights individuals have over their bodies — to make their own sexual determinations — through the false claim that access to sex (or rather compliance) is a human right. In short, “incel” means anti-consent.