All Men Are Incels: A Reinterpretation of Involuntary Celibacy, Consent, and the Social Contract of Sex

Dr. Orion Taban challenges the modern pejorative use of the term "incel" (involuntarily celibate), arguing that, by definition, every man experiences involuntary celibacy at some point in his life. He posits that the experience of having one's sexual interest rebuffed is a universal male experience, regardless of attractiveness, fame, or power. The true distinction among men is not between those who are rebuffed and those who aren't, but between those who choose to respect consent and the law, and those who do not.

The podcast emphasizes that when a man is sexually frustrated and chooses not to impose his will, he is actively upholding a woman's right to consent and respecting the foundations of civil society. This choice, which is essential for an ordered society, is paradoxically often met with mockery and derision, particularly from women. Taban highlights the logical inconsistency and danger of disparaging men for doing the "right thing" – for abiding by the social contract rather than resorting to force.

Taban further elaborates on the concept of women as "gatekeepers of sex," clarifying that this is a role established by convention and societal agreement, not by nature or biology. Given the average physical disparity between men and women, the societal agreement to respect consent and prevent non-consensual sex is a voluntary surrender of natural rights, forming the basis of civil society as described by Hobbes. Therefore, a man who chooses to be involuntarily celibate in a specific instance is actively participating in and reinforcing this crucial social contract.

The broader implication is that punishing men for respecting consent creates a perverse incentive, potentially pushing them towards villainous behavior. The episode warns against the societal folly of mocking those who uphold the law and respect others' rights, drawing parallels to historical examples of obliviousness to social unrest. It underscores that such disparagement is not only stupid and tasteless but also undermines the very fabric of civil society that protects women's autonomy and prevents chaos.

every man irrespective of how handsome or famous or powerful or charming he might be has been frustrated in his sexual desire at some point in his life.

If there is a single experience that binds together all men of all cultures, it is having one's sexual interest rebuffed.

when a man's sexual interest is rebuffed, there are really only two possible outcomes. Either the man is going to be at least with respect to that relationship involuntarily celibate or the woman is going to be, shall we say, involuntarily sexual.

when a man is involuntarily celibate, what is he necessarily doing? Well, among other things, he is acknowledging the right of a woman to consent to sex, and he is respecting the foundations of civil society.

The distinction does not come down to those who are rebuffed and those who aren't... But to those who are governed by law and human decency and those who aren't.

The reason Gangghask Khan might not have been an incel was not because women found him universally attractive. It's because he didn't take no for an answer.

Women are not naturally endowed with that privilege. It is not in their nature or in their biology to unilaterally prevent sex from occurring in the event that they don't want it. If it were, then non-consensual sex literally wouldn't be possible.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex by convention... because we've gotten together as a society by creating a structure of order and establishing a system of laws.

If there is a recipe for making someone villainous, it is precisely this. Punish him for doing the right thing.

insulting the men who abide in that frustration instead of imposing their will on women is as stupid as it is tasteless.