The feminist “argumentum ad caelibatum”, i.e. “you’re wrong because I claim that you don’t get laid”

There is a myriad of logical fallacies. When researching feminist discourse online, for instance in comment sections, however, it seems that one particular logical fallacy reigns supreme. I’d like to define it as the “argumentum ad caelibatum”, i.e. the charge that because someone is claimed to not get laid, his argument is invalid.

Indeed, standard feminist responses to legitimate problems are almost humorous. Let’s say you want to point out that child custody primarily seems to go to the mother, no matter how unfit she may seem to raise her child. Or maybe you want to make the point that now that more than 50 % of college students are female, surely the boys could need some support to increase their relative numbers. What you then encounter is often a knee-jerk reaction, not unlike the kind of hissy fit your four-year old niece (or 25 year-old Western bitch of a girlfriend) might throw if you tell her that she’s now had enough ice cream.

Here are some examples:

You: It seems that men are systematically disadvantaged in divorce courts.
Feminist: You sound as if you don’t get laid.

You: I can perfectly understand when young men chose not to marry and buy into a phantasy that is pushed by society but has little to do with reality.
Feminist: You need to man up! (And you don’t get laid either!)

You: I don’t think many women bring much to the table.
Feminist: When was the last time you got laid?

You: The MGTOW movement seems to be gaining a lot of steam.
Feminist: The MGTOW movement is one blow job away from collapsing.

You: My employer recently hired a bunch of women to increase its quota of diversity hires, rejecting dozens of men who were more highly qualified.
Feminist: You only say this because you don’t get laid!

…and so on and so forth.

I don’t think I have to point out that such an argument is untenable as it is completely irrelevant in that context whether you get laid or not. It’s a good rule of thumb that whenever someone doesn’t discuss the issue at hand but chooses an ad hominem attack, that the other party doesn’t have any argument left.

However, note that the “you don’t get laid” charge, the “argumentum ad caelibatum”, plays into the societal myth that sex would be the be-all and end-all of male existence, and your sole source of validation. Feminists make this claim as a knee-jerk response. It doesn’t matter if you get laid or not. You could stand there, holding hands with the most gorgeous girl you could imagine, and the feminist hag would tell you that you only criticize bullshit feminist policies because, you guessed it, you don’t get laid. It’s nothing but an attempt to shut you up, and it is based on the assumption that you are like the typical Western guy: a spineless pussy.

I find “virgin shaming” and related accusations rather amusing, though. However, it is unfortunate that so many men seem to buy into it. But let’s look at it objectively and ask ourselves what it takes to get laid. Let’s aim higher and ask ourselves what it takes to get laid a lot. Here’s a short list based on my experience:

– live in a big city with a large transient female population
– be tall
– wear “hip” clothes, i.e. stuff from a thrift store
– be slim

I don’t want to sound overly cynical, but if getting laid a lot was a measure of success in life, then it’s an incredibly poor one. You don’t need to have much money, heck, you don’t even need to have a job. As long as you look “hip” in the eyes of some chick, you stand a good chance of getting your dick wet. This doesn’t say anything about your potential as a long-term mate, though. Due to festering moral depravity in the West, our esteemed women are willing to jump the dick of any loser as long as he gives them “teh feelz”. In the worst case, if some hot loser knocks them up, there is always daddy government to provide child support and free housing.

So, let’s assume you get laid a lot with random chicks. Now, ask yourself what kind of validation do you get from that. Without wanting to oversimplify too much, but the women you encounter belong to one of the following categories:

1) She’s young and inexperienced, and willingly spreads her legs for a guy who seems experienced.
2) She’s not so inexperienced anymore, and likes to get validation from fucking a random guy. She might also look for a boyfriend.
3) She’s not so young anymore and desperately looking for a boyfriend/husband.
4) She’s horny.
5) She’s desperate.

I won’t deny that it can be thrilling to pull a random girl. The chase is often more interesting than the consumption, though, but that’s beside the point. What is important to point out, though, is that it would be absurd to base your sense of self-worth on whether you get laid or not. If you pull younger girls, they often don’t have much to say and can be quite tiring to be around. In fact, I found most women to be mind-numbingly boring since their interest didn’t go beyond contemporary fads. Often, getting laid is little more than a test of your mental endurance, and it’s simply a question of whether you can stand listening to her bullshit for another half an hour, or whether you just walk off, and hail a cab back to your place instead.

As women get older, they also become much less desirable. I certainly got the impression that, with very few exceptions, any guy who’s got some choice among women, prefers a 25 year-old over a 35 year-old. The reason is not just looks, but also that the former come with much less mental baggage, and they probably are not hell-bent on marrying you within the next ten days. Older women are more tolerant towards “boring” guys, though. Some Joe Average with a steady paycheck will be more desirable for an older woman, if only because she got burnt by all the hot guys who pumped and dumped her, or because she was never that desired by guys to begin with, and now feels her eggs drying up.

So, what’s the upshot? Well, to get laid with random Western whores you only have to pander to their shallow egos. If you’re young and you remind her of the dude who sings in her favorite band, you’ll get laid. But what is this besides a narcissist exercise? Many guys are overlooked, and that’s due to the fact that a lot of women imagine that eventually some hot guy will approach them, but if this doesn’t happen for a long time, she’ll start entertaining the thought of giving Joe Schmoe a chance. So, if that Joe Schmoe wants to get laid, he only has to pursue women in their late 20s and early 30s. In summary, and I’m fully aware that this might sound strange, coming from me, if you base your self-worth on the number of women you’ve fucked, you need to set your priorities straight.

I can’t think of a plausible situation in which the “argumentum ad caelibatum” would be valid. However, there is a related charge that would make sense, which I realized when a friend of mine mentioned that he considered going into politics. He is doing very well for himself, has a very good job, and wife and kids as well. He remarked that if you run for a conservative party, then having a stable background is very important, and so is having a family. I hadn’t thought of this, but I see the plausibility of the reasoning, because if you run for office for such a party, it’s probably not so great if you’ve fathered a bunch of illegitimate children or take it up the ass in the gay clubs of your city weekend after weekend. We have a lot of “liberal” politicians like that in the West. They are essentially highly paid dope fiends. (Germany has a gay MP who supports pedophilia and was caught with the gutter drug crystal meth, for instance.) You only need to look around to see what a mess they turned our beautiful countries into. So, I consider it perfectly valid to dismiss a politician if he isn’t a family man; that’s only a related point, though.

4 thoughts on “The feminist “argumentum ad caelibatum”, i.e. “you’re wrong because I claim that you don’t get laid”

  1. The cognitive dissonance is very strong with this argument.
    Feminist claim to fight against the patriarchal, “macho”, “alpha” society and despise men cause of it, yet with this they flat out state:
    If you are not a macho, an alpha who fucks a lot of women, your words have no merit.

  2. A “Rational feminist” is an oxymoron. Any debate I have seen with feminists rapidly descends into ad hominem attacks and screaming by the feminists. Any man they choose to villanize is usually depicted either as a frustrated virgin or a rapist (or both). When they say “the personal is political” they are not kidding.

  3. The indoctrination required to become a feminist, not unlike any indoctrination, requires years of supressing cognitive dissonance, and critical thinking more generally.

    I find it easier to have rational discussions with religious believers than with feminists.

  4. Feminism is just a political propaganda like communism.
    As Marxism explained the problems of the world on the proletarian and Bourgeoisie axis, feminism similarly uses 2 axes: men against women.
    Both of these ideology makes one axis the victim, the other the offender.
    The ideology in itself is black and white logical fallacy.
    The real world is more complicated, there are a lot of variables,
    but these manipulators are not interested in solving any real problems.
    That would mean really hard work and tremendous effort.
    They just use problems for their political gains.
    The most blatantly obvious example to me is “manspreading”.
    “Manspreading” means that a male sits on a public transport with open legs, occupying more than 1 place.
    This can manifest in other scenarios: women put their bags on the chair, someone talks loudly on the mobile phone. etc.
    The main problem here is self-entitled attitude, and disrespect to others who want to sit down.
    This is the problem, but these feminist are not interested in the problem itself they just cherry-pick the outcomes to fuel their ideology.
    It’s bullshit, especially looking at the fact that if someone sits like that other males also cannot sit beside him. It is not even women’s issue.
    It is ridiculous that they make campaigns over petty little things like this instead of growing some balls and ask the other person to close their legs a little because, or put their bag elsewhere.
    But campaigns mean attention, they mean incitement, they mean voters and political power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *