Sometimes incels (and some other men who are chronically lonely) are asked a question like "do you think you are entitled to sex?" Sometimes this question is even asked in their own forums.
This is a notionally and categorically wrong question to ask. It's essentially a nonsensical question. (In certain particular contexts it could be a valid question to ask, but generally not in the contexts where it's usually asked.)
It's essentially no different from asking "do you think you are entitled to food?", or "do you think you are entitled to social interactions with people?"
Asking it like that is fundamentally wrong. It's essentially asking if the person thinks that he deserves food, or social interaction with people, by some merit, or as some kind of reward or fundamental right, or because who that person is as a person.
Food is a daily urgent biological necessity for survival. It's not optional. It's not a question of whether someone is "entitled" to food or not. Food is an essential necessity and requirement for survival. Food is a "need", not something that someone is "entitled" to. Without food one would quickly die.
A less urgent and somewhat less severe, but still quite important, biological necessity is social interaction with people. Our brains are hard-wired to need this. This need is so ingrained and so strong, that if somebody completely lacks it, it usually will relatively quickly have severe side-effects and symptoms. This is the reason why solitary confinement is considered by most human rights organizations as a form of torture. If somebody is completely cut off from society, never interacting with other people in any way, shape or form, never even seeing other people or hearing them, usually that somebody will quite quickly develop varying degrees of psychological symptoms, which may include things like irritation, restlessness, claustrophobia, hallucinations, manic-depressive disorders, suicidal thoughts, and in the most severe cases even some forms of psychosis.
Thus social interaction with other people, no matter how minor, is thus likewise a need, not something that someone is "entitled" to. It's a need for one's own health and psychological well-being. Asking someone if he feels "entitled to social interaction" is just a categorically wrong question to ask. It's a nonsensical question to ask, in this context.
Sex, or more generally romantic relationships (which is ultimately what most of these people really mean when they talk about "sex"), is not even nearly as urgent of a need for one's survival, health, or mental well-being, but it is nevertheless a deeply ingrained psychological innate instinct that's hard-wired into people's brains, and when a person lives for long enough without it, it does cause psychological symptoms and side-effects, such as depression, anxiety, frustration, irritation, and in the worst cases even suicidal thoughts. Chronic loneliness, when it prolongs itself for long enough, can have negative health consequences, both psychological and, in fact, even physical (because mental issues like depression and stress can have direct negative effects on one's physical health, as well as aggravate the effects of otherwise unrelated diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases.)
So, while not as urgent and crucial as food or simple social interactions, romantic relationships, sex, is also a need, not something that one is "entitled" to. Here, too, it's just the categorically wrong question to ask. People are not "entitled" to things that maintain and uphold their physical and mental health. These are needs and necessities, not optional things that one "deserves" or "is entitled to" because of eg. who he is or what he has done or what kind of person he may be.
Of course nobody can be just given a romantic relationship just like that, because it needs two people to agree, so it's a much more complicated question than eg. with food. However, we shouldn't be talking about "entitlement" in this context either.
This is a notionally and categorically wrong question to ask. It's essentially a nonsensical question. (In certain particular contexts it could be a valid question to ask, but generally not in the contexts where it's usually asked.)
It's essentially no different from asking "do you think you are entitled to food?", or "do you think you are entitled to social interactions with people?"
Asking it like that is fundamentally wrong. It's essentially asking if the person thinks that he deserves food, or social interaction with people, by some merit, or as some kind of reward or fundamental right, or because who that person is as a person.
Food is a daily urgent biological necessity for survival. It's not optional. It's not a question of whether someone is "entitled" to food or not. Food is an essential necessity and requirement for survival. Food is a "need", not something that someone is "entitled" to. Without food one would quickly die.
A less urgent and somewhat less severe, but still quite important, biological necessity is social interaction with people. Our brains are hard-wired to need this. This need is so ingrained and so strong, that if somebody completely lacks it, it usually will relatively quickly have severe side-effects and symptoms. This is the reason why solitary confinement is considered by most human rights organizations as a form of torture. If somebody is completely cut off from society, never interacting with other people in any way, shape or form, never even seeing other people or hearing them, usually that somebody will quite quickly develop varying degrees of psychological symptoms, which may include things like irritation, restlessness, claustrophobia, hallucinations, manic-depressive disorders, suicidal thoughts, and in the most severe cases even some forms of psychosis.
Thus social interaction with other people, no matter how minor, is thus likewise a need, not something that someone is "entitled" to. It's a need for one's own health and psychological well-being. Asking someone if he feels "entitled to social interaction" is just a categorically wrong question to ask. It's a nonsensical question to ask, in this context.
Sex, or more generally romantic relationships (which is ultimately what most of these people really mean when they talk about "sex"), is not even nearly as urgent of a need for one's survival, health, or mental well-being, but it is nevertheless a deeply ingrained psychological innate instinct that's hard-wired into people's brains, and when a person lives for long enough without it, it does cause psychological symptoms and side-effects, such as depression, anxiety, frustration, irritation, and in the worst cases even suicidal thoughts. Chronic loneliness, when it prolongs itself for long enough, can have negative health consequences, both psychological and, in fact, even physical (because mental issues like depression and stress can have direct negative effects on one's physical health, as well as aggravate the effects of otherwise unrelated diseases, such as cardiovascular diseases.)
So, while not as urgent and crucial as food or simple social interactions, romantic relationships, sex, is also a need, not something that one is "entitled" to. Here, too, it's just the categorically wrong question to ask. People are not "entitled" to things that maintain and uphold their physical and mental health. These are needs and necessities, not optional things that one "deserves" or "is entitled to" because of eg. who he is or what he has done or what kind of person he may be.
Of course nobody can be just given a romantic relationship just like that, because it needs two people to agree, so it's a much more complicated question than eg. with food. However, we shouldn't be talking about "entitlement" in this context either.
Comments
Post a Comment