I'd only seen a few of her videos and not that one in particular. So I'll start with my views on the subject: 1.) It's okay to have preferences. Said preferences can be largely or entirely physical, so long as you don't expect meaningful relationships to come from it. 2.) It's *not* okay to shame people for not meeting your preferences, or to go around saying that people in certain categories are gross and unfuckable just for being in that category.
As a matter of etiquette I wouldn't recommend doing that to random strangers or the "wrong place wrong time". Context matters. Choice of words matters. There's a time and place for discussing standards.
And sure nobody is literally "unfuckable", but certain preferences are a bit of rarity, so your chances drop significantly. Obese women - not a lot of people are into that. It's not shaming, I'm not literally walking up to random women saying "Haha you're fat". I don't even do that to women I know (at least assuming they also respect me and aren't my enemy or something), but if someone was constantly complaining about not finding the right man or whatever, that subject would inevitably come up.
What constitutes "shaming" is a little more broad than that to an SJW and can be something is benign as an ad with a fit woman and the text "Beach Body Ready" or something like that attached. That goes far beyond just "being against shaming" and into trying to tear down standards. If such ads upset you for whatever reason, it is far easier for you to simply ignore the ad than it is for the entire society to carefully self-censor such that nothing is ever offensive to anyone. And personally I don't see any evidence that this is offensive to most people, I'm not offended that I don't have Arnie's muscles in his prime, why would I be? If I wanted his muscles all I had to do was put in the same effort.
Furthermore, when it comes to being fat or obese that raises healthcare costs. It doesn't even matter whether it's a free market or a universal healthcare system or something in between. The more medical resources you use up (instead of practicing prevention), the less there is for the rest of us, so it's not a reasonable expectation that people never bring up the subject in any context whatsoever. We do not have an unlimited number of doctors and medical supplies.
3.) It's also *not* okay to shame people for having different preferences than you, or to imply that your preferences are the only right and proper ones.
Again that's still context dependent.
I don't particularly care what strangers think, but if my son had some unusual preferences, I'd at least want to understand how that works. Cause honestly, very young man being exclusively interested in say 45 year old MILFs - that would be kinda weird. Just saying. It's not immoral or anything like that, but there might be some issues there. So would claiming to be asexual - I'd get my testosterone levels checked at a medic before making that claim.
4.) People who match your preferences aren't obliged to get involved with you, any more than you're obliged to do so with someone who thinks you meet their preferences.
The video in question appears to promote similar but not identical views. I honestly think it goes a little too far in the opposite direction of what incels believe in, and seems to be rooted in something akin to pansexuality as an ideal, which seems unrealistic. I suspect that if I brought it up in SJW circles, there would be people who'd agree with me, people who'd agree with RileyJayDennis, and people who'd agree with some third position that I'm not aware of. It's not like we all agree perfectly on every subject.
I didn't say SJWs all agree on everything.
I mean the incel ideology (if you can call it that) and SJWism (whatever it's called, some people call it the regressive left/cultural marxism etc) share some common premises. In both cases there's an oppressor class and an oppressed class and leads to a lot of resentment. In both cases there's an extreme disregard for individual liberty whether it's censoring speech deemed "hateful", expanding government to great levels that require taxing people over half their incomes to function or expecting the collective to guarantee sex.
Most feminists aren't against it completely, but they are against the common trope of such women being used as plot-related "prizes".
I really don't see what the issue is and women aren't even necessarily the "prize".
In many cases the protagonist doesn't actually fuck them at the end anyway, sometimes he's just saving his daughter or avenging a gf's death or whatever. In fact if he didn't, he would be a bad father or boyfriend.
In Mario you're just saving Princess Peach. No strings attached at all. The "prize" I guess is that your kingdom doesn't fall apart because there's no heir. Sounds good to me.
In HL2 you save Alyx several times (she also saves you ass in the beginning) and it's all for a far bigger cause than fucking.
Also this is how real life works. Women have disproportionately relied on men for dangerous situations. Men needing women to get out of danger... not unheard of but not common either. In fact if you're a woman in danger 9/10 chances the person responding to your call will be a cop that's a man. Cause on average men are physically stronger.
Especially when the prize goes to some colossal fuckup who learns how to be a not-so-big fuckup who is still a fuckup and is rewarded for it by getting the girl of his dreams. That's a terrible "lesson" which breeds incels.
There were incels before video games existed, you just didn't hear about them because there was also no Internet for them to gather on.
You know what would actually reduce their numbers? Every boy having a father present in their life and molding them to be more masculine. (Women like masculine men.) For that to happen this war on the family and fathers needs to stop, child support should be reformed (all expenses should be justified), joint custody should become the norm (unless the father is PROVEN to be abusive to the point where he can't be around children), welfare for single mothers should be cut to discourage having children in an irresponsible manner such as being unmarried or choosing a deadbeat father who can't or won't support a family.
I also think prostitution should be legal but then again from what I've seen most incels wouldn't use them. At least they'd have less of an excuse to complain.
Then again conviction rates are low, you have to be really stupid to get caught these days since you can: 1. film it and pretend to commercially distribute it 2. claim you're only paying for time not sex (then it's impossible to get convicted although you can still get scammed).
There's also the issue that overuse of a narrow standard of beauty acts as a subtle form of shaming against women who could never look that way no matter how hard they tried, and shaming against men who have other physical preferences.
No there isn't any shaming. Does giving engineering university degrees "shame" those only finished high school? No, it's just recognizing certain people's accomplishments. I'm certainly not offended I can't match their virtual barely realistic muscles, guess I'll just have to settle for women who don't have those expectations.
If it's really that "subtle" it still means you can easily avoid it by simply not playing that game or making your own (and if you can't make your own, you can make your own mod, so many alternatives).
There are more than enough games to choose from that don't even remotely follow that pattern and let me assure you, you won't finish them in a lifetime even if you speedrun them on the easiest difficulty.
And look, the reason these "narrow beauty standards" exist is because that's how we evolved, that's how we're wired. The reason young fit women in their early 20s are the most attractive to the highest number of men is because we're wired to instantly recognize that as a sign of health and fertility.
Between men who like healthy looking women in their 20's vs. I dunno, men who largely prefer 40 year old looking MILFs or whatever (again not that there's something immoral about it) who do you think was more likely to pass on their genes in the past?
I don't find the distinction of "positive rights" and "negative rights" very useful. Most things could be either depending on what frame of reference you're starting from.
It's not a particularly helpful frame of reference to argue from against incels if you accept the premise that the collective is obligated to take care of all your needs from cradle to grave. Think about it.
You're going to need to re-evaluate your core values because I don't see why people are any more entitled to the property of others (or to the comfort of others) than they are to sex.
And yes I understand that starvation is not quite the same as not having sex and it's on a different level. That's all fine, except the level of taxation in the west right now does not justify that. You do not need very high taxes to ensure the few people who can't earn their food or basic healthcare don't die. (But you do need a system that weeds out lazy people and other leechers. There are plenty of people on welfare that could work, lots of farming JOBS down south taken over by illegals because lazy Americans prefer welfare over that kind of work) In fact a lot of money is used for corporate welfare such as bailing out Wall Street.
Why are corporations entitled to free money? Money from ME? If they can't make a profit, it means their business model is not viable and they shouldn't exist.
