User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy/Archive 1

Validity of "Involuntary celibacy" - does it exist?
There is some small amount of research. Denise Donnelly (University of Georgia), Elisabeth Burgess, et. al. Published "Involuntary Celibacy: A life-Course Analysis" Journal of Sex Research, 38(2): 159-169, and Donnelly and Burgess are under contract for a book, Lives of Quiet Desperation: Involuntary Celibacy in Western Societies.

It's so nice to just resign oneself to failure, isn't it? Such a convenient way of justifying simple chronic laziness and/or self-centeredness :)

"Incel is not recognised by most experts in psychology". What does this mean?


 * - It means that a search of journals will find virtually no papers on the topic.

Does it mean that, if you asked a psychologist, s/he'd say (1), that there are no people who are involuntarily celibate?

Does it mean only that psychologists in general hold (2), that there is no such single identifiable phenomenon, e.g. a syndrome comprising several symptoms occurring together; instead, it is only as an epiphenomenon of some other psychological state or process - e.g. Asperger's, social phobia, avoidant personality disorder?

There definitely are some who do believe (1), that there are no involuntary celibates. Obviously some of them may be unintelligent but sexually successful people who know only other sexually successful people and can't imagine people who are not sexually successful.

More intelligent people are more likely to think that there are indeed people who would like to have sex with someone and "can’t", but that this "can’t" is compromised. They "can’t" only because (e.g.) they insist on sex only with a “one and only” deeply desired partner; or they are married to a spouse who refuses sex and have tenets - e.g. desire to maintain a stable marriage for children's sake, Catholic rejection of the possibility of divorce – that forbid them to either end the marriage or to seek sexual relations outside it; or they are too “squeamish” to seek sex with a prostitute. In short, their “can’t” reduces in only a few steps to a “won’t” – the involuntary celibacy is really voluntary.

However, acquaintance with people who seem sexually repulsive either physically or through inability to perform the social preludes to sex, or knowledge of how difficult may be the legal circumstances surrounding the person who wants sex, must give the lie to this “compromised-involuntariness” idea. Perhaps the person is watched at all times by her/his existing “inactive sexual” partner’s associates, or (in a country requiring strict Islamic observances) by a morals police, and even the beginning of advances to a potential new sexual partner would be reported to the existing partner or to the police with heavy legal consequences. Some strong (perhaps Existentialist) concepts of what constitutes choice would have to categorize refusal to rape as voluntary celibacy!

So clearly there are people who don’t have sex but want to, eliminating the proposition implicit in interpretation (1). Is the proposition implicit in interpretation (2) viable, that there is no single condition or syndrome best described under the heading “involuntary celibacy”? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 2 April, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know about psychologists because I've never met one, but I know from personal experience that an awful lot of people simply refuse to believe that there is such a thing as an incel. As you say, it rather hinges on how far you go with the "involuntary" part. Personally I refuse to rape anybody, so am I remaining celibate voluntarily? Most people go along with my declining to rape. But I also refuse to hire a prostitute (assuming one would let me. I'm very undesirable, and I imagine even professionals have SOME standards). In my mind this doesn't count against incel status because sex with a prostitute isn't "real" sex; it's more akin to masturbation. (For that matter, are you truly celibate if you masturbate?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.215.144 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 August, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that at long last, there's some rejoinder to the item that I wrote above. I, too, have been given the impression that even a prostitute would refuse my custom, though I regard prostitution as so oppressive to its practitioners that I have never made the experiment. I'm also in an "inactive marriage", so I'd have strong scruples about any extra-marital sexual act being adultery. (All this is the kind of reason that makes me study the "compromised involuntariness" concept.)


 * Surely we need to get this article upgraded into a proper treatment that explores at least some of the ground covered in Alana Potts' on-line Incelsite. By the way, seeing many very ugly or socially inept men in relationships with women who seemed in no way to feel themselves degraded by them is another source of interest - after initially feeling "I must be even worse than they", I have concluded "my involuntary celibacy must be due to something subtler". That's surely the case with you and nearly all but the most extreme cases of physical or social unattractiveness, these matters being very subjective and therefore encompassing many surprises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.122 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 August, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really know to be honest. I've tried on occasion to ask women friends why they aren't attracted to me, but as you can imagine that's a rather awkward conversation and little good can come of it (you basically sound like you've picked a really whiny way to try and proposition them). In my own case I do tend to chalk it up to physical factors - I'm not disfigured or anything, but am very much on the large side.


 * But I do think there's a sort of cycle of reinforcement that goes on. Incels don't date, so they don't acquire the skills needed to do it - I wouldn't have a clue how to ask a woman out. And so suddenly you're in your mid thirties and you still have all the nerves that most people got over when they were fifteen, compounded by the fact that you've always given in to them before so they're that much harder to beat now.


 * To cope with the loneliness and frustration of always being on my own, I've pretty much worked myself into the mindset that relationships and sex are things that happen to other people. It doesn't often occur to me to even wonder if a woman finds me attractive any more. (In fact I read a questionnaire in a magazine a few years back that asked all sorts of questions about what you do in your sexual fantasies. I only realised then that I'm not actually IN my own fantasies - I fantasise about other people having sex with each other!)


 * So the odds of me approaching a woman are basically zero... and the longer that goes on, the more entrenched I get into the idea that it's never going to happen, so it goes on even longer... and so on. Basically I don't see any hope unless a woman actively came after me, and that's not terribly realistic.


 * I agree that there's a ton of stuff that could go into the article, but I don't think I'd be able to write it from scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate2000 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 15 August, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, your situation sounds a little like me. I don't date, I don't approach women. I lack many of the requisite skills. And I don't consider myself to be all that attractive. Yet the last time I went out to a bar, someone tried to pick me up. Go figure. Me, I remain skeptical as to the validity of "involuntary celibacy". Kilraven 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were truly involuntarily, the female and male incels could simply be with one another. Men who feel they are rejected by most women often do not bother trying their luck with loners and instead focus their energy on their female friends. A woman who is comfortable having a friendship with a man will generally not be interested in dating someone who lacks confidence or social skills. A woman who is terribly insecure and full of self-hatred will be more than open to the possibility. Aikaterinē 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Incel or not?
I have a friend that although she is very desirable, and although she desires a relationship, she can't. As she says, between the men who like and approach her, she can't find one that fits, and feels very lonely and depressed. Does this type of person classify as an incel? Pictureuploader 11:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

- Interesting one. From what I know of my own case and other incels, they are unable to have a relationship because they are - or feel they are - unattractive. You say this woman is attractive, but is that how she sees herself? Supposedly even attractive people often don't feel it (though I've always wondered about that. Surely Halle Berry MUST realise how attractive she is? Modesty can only go so far when half the world is salivating over you!)
 * seems like you would be surprised to find out that generally the more "beautiful" a woman is the *more* insecure she could be! strange but frequently true. think about it for a little while and maybe you will see why..... or just ask me. lol Mathmo 18:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If the woman feels nobody desires her, then I would definitely classify her as incel. If she knows she could have a relationship but just hasn't met "Mr Right" yet, I'm not really sure but I'd be tempted to say she was just being picky.


 * As I made clear, there are many men who approach her and I am sure she feels quite attractive, which I think is related to her 'pickiness'. Picky is the word that fits, but I thought that Incel might have also the very opposite side. Pictureuploader 19:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources?
There are no sources presented which provide any corroboration that this term is one commonly used, much less that it is associated with "severe depression, self-harm, mental illness and even suicide." Could someone please cite some sources? john k 19:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The term is not yet commonly used, namely because it may be rare (we don't realy know because...) and has not benefited from proper scientific study. What little we do know comes from anecdotal self-reporting and a single survey of a rather small number of internet responders, and from that despression seems to be a common side-effect.  (Anecdotal reports suggest that phsychologists believe either that their patients are lying or are supressing homosexuality) Anarchist42 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How many people need to use the term before it qualifies as "common"? For instance, this : http://www.incelsite.com/ is one of several on the net that use it. A google of "involuntary celibacy" generates about a thousand hits.

Regarding links to depression, self-harm and such, I'm more dubious. Certainly that's not my own experience, but I'm just one guy. BobThePirate 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of whether the term is "common", I must say that I have no especial idea, but that is because the article gives no hint as to who actually uses the term. It says that the term is not commonly used, and that most psychologists don't use it. But it makes no claims as to who does use it. In terms of its commonness, I'm quite uncertain that a few web pages and a bunch of google hits is good enough to qualify. Please see here, which gives us a mere 325 hits for non-wikipedia sites which use the terms "involuntary celibacy" and "incel" in the same page. I don't think that hits for "involuntary celibacy" alone are particularly compelling - saying that one is practicing "involuntary celibacy", which I'm sure a fair number of people do - is quite different from using the term as a medical condition. john k 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure I'd describe people as "practicing" incel, since by its very definition it is not a voluntary thing - would you talk of a person practicing alcoholism?
 * I agree that the phrase - and indeed the condition itself - is not really accepted by the medical profession, but the article does make that completely clear. Given that the article can basically be summed up as "incel means this, and doctors don't believe in it" I think it's not valid to say the word shouldn't be used because doctors don't believe in it.
 * Certainly there are people out there who self-identify as incel. How many I couldn't say, really, since by we don't tend to advertise the fact. BobThePirate 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Geekery is also a common and real condition, although it's not a medical term, it's not accepted by the medical profession and has no medical interest, yet it exists. The difference is that 'Geek' is a widely known word (although I know person who don't know it) and that geeks are usually voluntarily geeks. Maybe you will say that the parallels I draw are irrelevant but I don't think so (after all many geeks are also incels) Pictureuploader 13:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you draw a good parallel. The only real objection to this article is how well known the existence of Incels is and how many of them there are. Personally I think it qualifies for inclusion so long as it's made clear that it's not an accepted medical condition and it's not widely known. BobThePirate 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are numerous rare psychological conditions, so being "well known" is a non-issue. It is not "an accepted medical condition" simply because psychologists refuse to study it, or confuse it with repressed homosexuality, deception, or depression. It is well known that humans need social contact to maintain good mental health, and that a lack of social contact causes depression. Anarchist42 16:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest this is very common, it's just that the name for it is much newer than the condition. Joffeloff 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this really true?
I've been reading HBI's section on nice guys, and this incel stuff seems like a way of making them feel better. I' think there should be a disputed facts on this one. 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What fact do you think is disputable? I don't see anywhere where the article implies involuntary celibacy is society's fault. Also, the male-to-female ratio is much more balanced than one might think. See the posts at the first supporting link (incelsupport.org), for instance. -- 67.51.168.65 17:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean. How is using the term Incel supposed to make anybody feel better about anything?BobThePirate 23:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find a label for a problem, makes you think that someone has already thought about it before you, and that you aren't alone. Plus, labels can give you a visible target of your problem. If you say 'I am an incel' won't solve your problem, but wil make you feel that you belong somewhere. Of course all this has its countereffects but that's another subject. Pictureuploader 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then again if you find the label, you confirm that yeah, there actually is something wrong with you... BobThePirate 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this really true? - i.e. are there really people who'd like to have sexual relations but can't? - if you doubt this, you must be in the category of "unintelligent but sexually successful people who know only other sexually successful people and can't imagine people who are not sexually successful" that I described above. For my part, as a 48-year-old man in an inactive marriage, I don't have a clue how to get laid - I wouldn't know how to make friends with a newly met woman, or ask one for sex (is that what one does?) without getting slapped or reported to the police. The only voluntary component to my celibacy is that I would never add to a woman's degradation as a prostitute by becoming yet another client of hers. Really, believe me all you studs out there, there must be plenty of people like me (doubtless of both genders) who'd love to enjoy another person's body and intimacy, but can see no decent way to get there. It's not "society's fault", it's probably something to do with my upbringing, with parents who emphasized a "gentlemanly aloofness" and "not making [my]self cheap", and discouraged even male friendships as potentially homosexual.132.185.240.122 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. I realize this isn't a discussion forum, but I'm genuinely curious: can you explain how is it that you are in an "inactive marriage"? Does that mean that you don't find your wife attractive anymore, or that when you try to have sex with her she always says no? Have you talked to her about it? I hope my questions don't offend you...
 * She always says no. If in the last few years I have hinted to my wife that I might like to have sex with her, the answer has always been, "What a silly idea!". We have little apparent mutual dislike, both consider divorce too expensive and potentially disruptive to our children's lives, and at my age and with my background of involuntary celibacy before marriage, I know that it would be a most unlikely solution to my problem.132.185.240.120
 * do you even still kiss each other? anyway, you need to slow crank things up. eventually you want to get to a point where *she* wants it... rest, should be easy from there. Mathmo 18:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, Mathmo, I don't think that's very helpful advice. He doesn't need basic little ideas like "take it slow man and it will all work out". That's like telling a clinically depressed person to just look on the brighter side of life. 134.117.226.51 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Jordan --- THE FOLLOWING IS FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF ANYONE, PREFERABLY PSYCHOLOGISTS, OF WHOM THERE ARE FAR FAR FAR TOO FEW DEALING WITH THE MOST SEVERE CONDITION OF THEM ALL. BUT I LL ADD THAT PEOPLE WITH THIS CONDITION DONT NEED A PSYCHOLOGIST. THEY NEED ONE THING: SEX, AND ANYTHING THAT CAN HELP THEM GET IT. I HAVE TRIED TO BE AS INFORMATIVE AS I CAN WITH THE TIME I HAVE. THE FEMINAZISM MOVEMENT MUST END. --- I have your source. Before I post, Id like to say that some of you, including the contributor/s to the main article, have very valid things to say. Others, however, are ignorant enough to speculate when infact they have not been in such a situation themselves.

I have, and I am. I am not ashamed to admit it, because I am "involuntarily celibate" for one reason only: I am impoverished. I have been my whole life. I am also homeless, and using someone elses pc to contribute this, incase some "I can only count to 1" retard was wondering. In direct contrast to the person at the top of this section who I can only identify as 67.51.168.65, I am living proof that it is exactly society that is to blame. More specifically, women- it is a 100 % undeniable Fact that women are not attracted to poor men. If you want proof, have an anonymous conversation with a female about it. Also, consult any seduction artist (pick up artist), who will tell you that this is how women are "naturally" predisposed, and raised, in this capitalist world. If my experience has told me one thing, it is that money is more important than anything else on planet Earth. Especially to women. If you are not aware of that, believe me, it is because you have enough money for it not to affect you.

Now, Im not an arrogant person, but this is a "fair test". In other words, for the sake of clarity, I have a talent for being funny and making people laugh, I have an IQ of 139, in appearance I am at least a 7 out of 10, I have been described as "the most fascinating, sweet, funny, interesting and unique" person people have ever met (repeatedly by several females) I am a talented guitarist with 13 years experience, and I am 20 years old. So why am I still a virgin?

The answer is because I am too poor to be able to go out (I cant afford one drink, acceptable dress, Or the entrance fee), I am too poor to have nice clothes, I am too poor to go to college to meet people, and I live in what has recently been official pronounced the most segregated society in the world - Britain. Which means I have no friends, because Ive been evicted from everywhere Ive ever lived because my mother could never pay the rent, and moved to an entirely new city, or caravan site, and entirely new school, throughout my life. Which has broken contact with every friend Ive ever met. The reason this point about friends is relevant, is this: what psychologists call "Social Proof". Experts say (although there are seven) that the two most important things influencing whether a girl will have sex with a man, are 1. How much money he has (not that hes rich neccessarily, but that he is not poor) 2. His Social Proof -his social status, and that he has company.

These are the two things I do not have. Consequently, I am still a virgin. As an aside, nobody can discredit me on this, because I LIVE it (this is all from my personal experience), and it is extremely likely that you dont, at least from a poor mans perspective. This is a moderately long post, but it is so because, in an article about "Involuntary Celibacy", sadly, I am the authority. Next I will very briefly describe the effect of "involuntary celibacy".

The effect of involuntary celebacy:

It is indescribable. Really. In fact, while I Try to find the words, I will tell you this- it is simply The Worst Thing Mankind Can Experience. Forget rape, homelessness, extreme violence, famine, torture, disease, receiving news a loved one has died, catching the love of your life screwing another guy, or anything you have been through. I am only qualified to say that because I have had a very very very rough life, and I have been the victim of all the horrors I just listed. And, although they were/are Horrendous, (I was tortured by my uncle when i was 6, in case you were wondering where torture came from) they were all Nothing compared to involuntary celibacy. Absolutely Nothing.

I can understand how someone who has lived a normal life in an equal society, cannot understand what this super-massive black hole of unimaginable suffering feels like.

Briefly, I will Try..just Try -because, truly, words cannot describe the depth and intensity of the constant emotional agony- to somehow show you what the meer horizon of this black hole is like. Ive gotta go soon anyway. So here goes.

It is the most powerful feeling I have ever experienced. There are two parts to the physical effects of involuntary celibacy. The sheer depth of the emotional agony actually makes you feel like you are floating. The primary areas most succeptable to this feeling are the eyeballs and somewhere in the stomache. It is so powerful that you dont feel rage. It is calm. It is spiritual, the pain is so rediculously great, that it puts you on a seperate, higher level, and you slow down. Your eyes blur, and your eye muscles start to work and move differrently. Your lips and chin change their rest position. Your pupils turn down when you talk. All of this is on a permanent and constant basis. This does it injustice by even attempting an introduction to the effects.

The second part, is the emotional effect. I dont even want to go into that on here, and I wont. Like I say, the depth of the agony is nothing less than infinite, so you will never understand its extent, the pain is absolutely indescribable. The simplest and most accurate way of describing it vaguely is this: I AM IN CONSTANT FREEFALL. Every day, I fall light years further down, through the darkest and most sinister, secret sanctum of Hell.

There is no-one to turn to, (how can I bring it up in a social situation anyway? Aside from anything else, the social stigma makes it absolutely impossible. I cant even tell my closest remaining family, so none of them know). I decay in silence. There is no-one to turn too. The only people who can help me are women who arent nazis (women who dont sexually discriminate against the impoverished). I am really starting to doubt whether there is such a thing.

There are two realities of involuntary celibacy, (at least in my case) that hurt me the most, out of everything. These are 1. That, in this world of capitalist quantative comparrisons, I will Never be able to compare to the other guys any woman has sex with, even if I do ever get laid. This is, as I say, one of the two most powerful effects of this, and surely any, human condition. Any sex I do have will be instantly overshadowed in these feminist times by another of her partners, past or future. Whatever I do and however hard I try, my sheer lack of experience compared to everyone else my age, will mean that a spiritually intimate experience with any woman I make love to, is condemned into the shadow of someone else, and my most intimate expression of emotion with another person will do only one thing: make me the inferior, and make her remember how much better (all) her previous boyfriend(s) was. This comes at a time where the pressure to be an adequate lover is higher than, lets face it, probably any pressure bestowed on anyone, any time, anywhere, ever.

The knowledge of that pressure and my inferiority regarding it, has been enough to drive me to commit suicide.

I jumped off a bridge, over an A road in the south of England, into the path of a lorry, as I thought the lorrys weight would kill me quickly. I misstimed it slightly, and the lorrys roof broke my fall in two, and there wasnt a car behind it, so I survived the fall. There were a lot of repercussions afterwards, but committing suicide is very exhausting, and I havent had the energy to since.

I assure you therefore that -when someone on this page commented about whether severe depression (as quoted in the original, and very accurate, article) was really a result- that "severe depression" is actually an Understatement. I was wondering if it could be edited to at least "intensly severe depression", believe me I am qualified to know. Also, suicide is very likely, so putting that would be more accurate than "even suicide".

The second of the two most powerful, harshest initial realities, is that you know that everyone else is doing it, and connecting, being intimate with, and giving eachother pleasure. That is like an international, age old, mass-conspiracy. I am the one out of the loop. And now, you know what the effect is? I have a phobia. I am scared of one thing-sex. I cant take it on the TV any more, I came damn close to killing myself again 5 weeks ago when I overheard a couple having sex. My phobia also undoubtedly stems from someone I was in my only ever relationship with, having sex with someone else, who became their future, and current, boyfriend.

Growing up in 3rd (in Britain, its 4th really) World Poverty as an only child street gypsy, in the most segregated country in the world, by myself, isnt easy. But even that is doable, as I have proved (albeit in the knowledge that I have no future and will most likely end up in prison). But to endure all that And not have a sex life, or express love for other people intimately, is too much, and it is only that, that drove me to suicide. I dont know if I hope it wont do so again. The pain of Involuntary Celebacy is just too much to bare.

This account was as much for any psychologist that comes here as it is for anyone else, as this is most definitely, without doubt, the most deadly, sinister and unbearable condition in the human world. Reproduction is one of the seven biological behaviours that proves any creature is scientifically alive. I do only six. And I am totally dead inside.

If you can really appreciate the deepest expressions of music, I was thinking of leaving you with a couple of the most accessible of the flows that come closest to allowing me to understand this infinite and constant agony. That is probably the best way to expalin to someone who doesnt understand the pure Hell. But I dont think I ll post them here, theyre too personal to me now, as theyre all that keeps me alive.

IN CONCLUSION, FEMINISM MUST END. WOMEN MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR NAZISM.

Involuntary Celibacy is incurable. It doesnt matter if I became a pornstar now, its too late, Im mentally scarred forever. Still, there is one temporary cure that would make life livable.....I bet you cant guess what that is......

-- Man...I know you've had a hard life...and so have I...but you have to realise something. None of it matters, in the end. It's okay, to be the way you are. Really, truly, it is. The only one judging you here is yourself. And you don't want to hear that, and you won't accept it, but it's true.

Read the book Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk. It's gotta be the most dreary, fuck-all depressing book out there, but I'll be damned if it didn't bring me inner peace. Seriously, it's like my Bible. But keep in mind, this is not because I watched the movie and, like so many less-than-intelligent people, decided it was cool because "he totally punched that guy and almost knocked his eye out".

No, Fight Club is my personal mental sanctuary because it touches on so many basic truths that we all seem to forget constantly: You, as a person, are not composed of your money, or your clothes, or the size of your penis, or your car, or how much sex you have, or how macho you are, or your job, or anything. What you are is a chaotic mixup in a strange Universe that somehow, through eons upon eons of time, managed to create system of life that support you and I.

Society teaches you that without money, you are worthless. Society teaches you that without sex, you are worthless. Society teaches you that without a great body, without clean teeth, without a nice car to drive you from your too-expensive home that you keep shit you don't need in, to others' too-expensive homes filled with shit they don't need, you are worthless.

Society is wrong.

You are worth what you want to be worth. It's up to you, because no one else can decide that for you. And you have to realise, that in the end, it doesn't matter. Because you are going to die. And I am going to die, and everyone who will ever live will at some point die, so unless the afterlife is a *direct* continuation of our current lives, it simply does not matter.

I understand agony. I understand loneliness. I understand what you're feeling, because I've been there, done that, and pushed it away.

There is a way out. I'm not talking about suicide. No, I'm talking about something far more simple. Let go.

Just let go.

Let go of your wants. Let go of your fears. Let go of your dreams. Let go of your needs.

Let yourself float, and experience life.

And when you decide on a direction, take it. Because you are your own god. No one else.

I hope as you get older, things start to fall into place for you. But I'm also okay with that not happening, because I have realized...no, more than that, I have been enlightened to the fact that it only matters in this moment, and this moment is so fleeting that when time innumerable passes, none of us will care. Not you, not I, not anyone.

Good luck, friend. --69.92.19.76 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Friend,

Its fascinating that you brought up Fight Club. Fight Club is also the bible for me! I could not agree more myself. If youre on here again, take a note of my email. Please dont complain that I write it here guys, the more I use email the less you have to put up with discussion. Although frankly, what could be more informative than incels talking about their condition, to understand the condition? again, very naive by some. talk about kicking people when theyre down. my email: no-illusions@hotmail.com [28 August] ps. Ive only returned here once, and this article, despite its critics who somehow think I or you made the condition up, is surely the most informative article on the subject by now. also, this page is titled "Discussion". can anyone explain to me why "discussion" is not appropriate on the "discussion" page? case rested. take it easy people. oh, except "Leigh vs OptimusMaximus" below. kick me:

Wow! I thought that I was bad with women! LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable forums
If s15.invisionfree.com/IncelSupport is not a 'notable' forum, can anyone suggest one that is 'notable'?

"not recognised"
"Incel is not recognised by most experts in psychology, virtually no research has been published, and no statistics are available."

So, uh, why is there an article about it on Wikipedia? What happened to WP:V and WP:NOR ? Daniel Barlow 23:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to what I wrote above about geeks some months ago Pictureuploader 23:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a great parallel. The term geek is widely used outside geek circles and there are plenty of sources that non-geeks can use when writing for WP about geekery.  I don't get the impression when reading this article that the same is true of "incel", which seems to be (at least thus far) a label used mostly for self-description by its sufferers - by and large not the most likely people to maintain a WP:NPOV outlook on the subject.  That said, I think I would be less cheesed off about it if I had't had to read five paragraphs of the article before being made aware that this was the case. Daniel Barlow 16:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * At least that doesn't make it NOR. Now we can just improve it. Pictureuploader 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Not recognized by most experts in psychology" means it isn't listed as a mental/emotional disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, DSM-IV. Disorders listed in DSM-IV are conditions that most of us have, only carried to an extreme, to the point where they interfere the affairs of daily living. What is in DSM changes over time. In DSM IIIR, the other extreme of nymphomania, was downgraded to sexual addiction, and now it has disappeared entirely in DSM IV. That doesn't mean that the joyless compulsive coupling of nymphomania no longer exists; it's just considered part and parcel of other disorders. InCel gets categorized in DSM-IV as "social avoidance" - and that's usually what it really is. The typical person complaining of InCel does not have a problem with sex as a solitary activity, but only with group sex involving two or more persons (including oneself).

There are 12,400 hits when one does a google search on &quot;involuntary celibacy&quot; (including the quote marks so that it's searching ONLY for the phrase. That's surely sufficient to avoid the constraints on original research. ClairSamoht 05:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The above claim that InCel is "usually social avoidance" is quite an (apparently unsubstantiated) claim which assumes, amongst other things, that no one is too unattractive to find a partner. In fact, because InCel has been ignored by researchers little is know about it (which leaves us with nothing more than wild guesses like the above). Anarchist42 17:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're unaware that many people close their eyes during sex? How unattractive does someone have to be? I know of both men and women with incredibly bad teeth, and men and women who weigh in excess of 400 pounds, who meet and have sex with 2-3 new partners every month.


 * There are a lot of lonely women out there, and unless there are medical issues like impotence, needing an iron lung, etc., a guy only needs to be freshly bathed and appear "safe" - meaning undiseased, nonviolent, not cloying and discreet - to get laid, and half the time, it's within a month of meeting. Guys tend to be even less choosy.


 * If one doesn't meet potential partners, of course, it's not going to happen, and if one lives in a small town, visiting another community to seek a partner may avoid scandal. That takes time and money one may not be willing to budget. But lots of people do it. If it's important to you, and you find yourself unable to meet with potential partners, that's pretty much the definition of social avoidance. ClairSamoht 18:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember a comedian once saying to a heckler, "What do you use for birth control, your personality?". And when I read about InCel, that line keeps coming to mind. If someone who really wants a partner can't find one, then there's something wrong. And if they aren't suffering from a legitimate psychological condition such as social avoidance, then it may be something about that person that's driving other people away. A friend of mine is a great example. He used to be very disagreeable, hard to get along with, and women would have nothing to do with him. Several years ago he had to move back in with his parents because of financial hardship. And since his parents were devout churchgoers, he started to go to church again. (Didn't have a choice). Within several months he was more cheerful, much easier to get along with... and when he moved out of his parents' home a few years later (having found a good job) he kept going to church. And he's even been dating women who go to the church. Kilraven 23:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the stub marker
I think this article is long enough that the stub marker is no longer warranted. I'll ditch it.

Manticore 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What about taking matters in your own hands?
That's all I have to ask.
 * Like what? If nobody likes you yet you 'take matters in your hands' it's called rape. Pictureuploader 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't think that's quite what he meant by "your own hands".
 * To answer the question, that particular activity doesn't qualify as breaking celibacy AFAIK, since you aren't actually having sex but just simulating it. BobThePirate 15:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought he meant 'why not do something besides whining about yourselves'. Many think that being liked or not depends on ourselves. Incels do not. Pictureuploader 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And that, my friend, is your entire problem! By classifying yourself as "incel" and saying that there isn't anything you can do about it, you're simply being self-defeating. 130.132.25.190 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway this is not the place to resolve personal problems and give advice and change the others' opinion. Pictureuploader 21:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, he's talking about jerking off. And no, you're a virgin if you only jerk off.The preceding anonymous comment was posted from 64.12.117.5(cache-mtc-ae01.proxy.aol.com) at 21:14, 19 Aug 2006
 * Depends on your definition of virgin. I've known Roman Catholic girls who were told by their nuns to preserve their virginity, and not use tampons. ClairSamoht 03:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds a lot like the arguments about depressed people in the past: "It's only in your head!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.104.105 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia
I'll bet most people on t3h intern3t5 can relate to this article, lol.

exact :(

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.197.210 (talk • contribs)

Why Involuntary Celibacy Both Is and Is Not a Choice
Personal Example and Analysis: I am almost 20 years old, and I am an incel. I discovered that something was "wrong with me" in comparison to what is considered normal in the United States for a person around the ages of 16 to 18. Many of my friends had lost their virginity, and I was still waiting for my first kiss or even to hold hands (I still am). At first I thought it was because I was ugly, and I supported this notion for some time, believing that if only I improved my appearances, everything else would follow. However, I later talked to people about this and discovered that I am considered average or just slightly below, and two females have rated me as cute or handsome. On top of that, I began to realize that even ugly men, as well as fat, vulgar, stupid, abusive, and other such "undesirable" persons were capable of finding relationships. I am now probably the most physically attractive I have been in my life thus far, and yet I am still unable to find anyone, so there are clearly other factors involved which may be below normal human perception to identify and explain.

This is where the matter of choice comes in. Was it my choice to be like this? Hardly. What reasonable person would choose to be denied what other people have and he or she wants without good reason? Good reason is the point there that some would miss, including myself until not too long ago. It is my choice not to engage in prostitution or rape. Those things are illegal and immoral, but I could do it if I wanted to and no longer be an incel. It is my choice to limit sexual activity only to a relationship, and it is also my choice not to have a relationship with someone below my standards. I am not picky, and I do not have high standards. My standards are below what most people would expect. I will not date males at all, nor will I females who are: extremely overweight, extremely unattractive (ugly, and I mean really ugly), "sluttish" (sleeps around, cheats on partner), significantly unintelligent or mentally handicapped, uninteresting or annoying to the point that I would gain more pleasure talking to a cactus, or too young or too old. All people in the past who could have been romantic or sexual partners for me fell below these standards, except for my "girlfriend" in kindergarten. My last chances for experience were with a 13 year old girl and a man who was in the closet, and I rejected these based on principle, and that is something that I think most people could understand. I did actually date a girl several years back though, but this was only because she also did not meet my expectations (she was slightly learning disabled and sexually loose), and she was the one who essentially initiated the relationship, me giving into her. I later realized it was a mistake.

Let us briefly examine the idea that involuntary celibacy is mainly about social isolation. I have friends. People who I don't even know who they are know who I am, I have many people who claim to be my friends, and I have a few close friends. I have more and closer relationships with the opposite sex than the average man. The simple problem is that the vast majority do not and seemingly can not see me in a romantic or sexual way. I'm funny, I'm smart, I don't look that bad, and I'm a nice guy, but they only want me as a friend. It's not as if I have never tried either. I have been rejected by about 36 different girls across 3 states and 12 years, the greater portion being in the past few years.

To conclude, could I have romantic and sexual experience? Yes, and as such I am choosing not to, but I am incapable of obtaining these things without going against my morals and beliefs, and in that way it is not my choice. Some might argue that an incel is choosing to be that way by not changing whatever is wrong with him- or herself and instead just complaining about their problems. However, such a change is not possible in the situation where the person does not know what is "wrong". If people actively seek relationships, such as I do, then it is clear that they do not desire to be alone and are doing everything within their current ability to find someone. It is some force they cannot control that creates their condition. This is not the case with all incels though. In fact, many are indeed the source of their own problems (for reasons other than extreme ones such as refusing to engage in rape or prostitution or relationships far below reasonable standards), and they can change the situation, but there are always exceptions.

Good lord...
What in the world is up with this talk page? People, article talk pages are not "InCel" message boards. It is not a place for people to complain about their (lack of) love lives, nor is it a place for people to give advice to others about how to get laid. It is, in fact, a place to discuss the quality of this wikipedia article, which remains just as sorely lacking as it was when I commented on it back in January. It continues to be completely uncited, and to provide no evidence that this is a well-recognized "condition." The whole article seems to be a forum for self pity. I suggest everyone go out and watch The Forty Year Old Virgin and that we then regroup and think about whether this should actually be an article, and, if by some chance, it should, whether we should do a better job actually providing reliable sources that deal with the subject. john k 10:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a well-recognised condition. What evidence do you want? You can see it around you, you don't need evidence. Pictureuploader 10:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are a lot of guys (and perhaps some women as well) who want to have sex, but are not doing so, does not mean that this is a worthy topic for an encyclopedia article. Please see wikipedia's policies on verifiability, original research, and reliable sources. john k 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is POV and btw it can be justified in the external URLs (there is a [online] group labelling themselves as incel, and yes, there have been some measurements about 'involuntary celibacy'). However I agree that some statements should be referenced. Pictureuploader 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's any number of things that have online groups. We should be careful of giving them legitimacy by having articles about them.  I have no idea what the statement that "notability is POV" means.  Are you suggesting that there should be no notability requirements for the existence of wikipedia articles?  You are free to believe this, but this is certainly not the actual policy of wikipedia. john k 19:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is a meaning that is by definition POV. For me Incel is notable, for you (and everyone who is 'normal') it isn't. I guess the external links justify its notability. Pictureuploader 22:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It can never be recognized or gain sufficient evidence if it is simply ignored. There is a big difference between self pity and explaining a condition to people who do not understand it and trying to find its causes. This article is important because it is one of the main sources on the internet giving some amount of insight into the subject, and when someone with better, supported knowledge and input steps forward to edit and modify it, it will be appreciated. Until then, all those who are incels would probably argue that it should stay up to aid public awareness and promote further serious research into the matter, giving it greater credibility. As to whether or not it is verifiable, some research has been done by psychologists, and it is a real phenomena, and forgive me if I'm wrong in thinking that this was shown in the article and discussion. 164.58.112.32 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. john k 08:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC


 * I disagree that this article is the main source on incelness. It's not, and that's why it can be verified. I agree it should stay for 'public awareness' (of course, by making its existence known, not by advocating it) Pictureuploader 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. " Do you see that the article is advocating incelness or is POV? We are just 'advocating' its existence. Pictureuploader 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Advocating the existence of something whose existence is a matter of dispute is, in fact, advocacy. I can't imagine anybody would actually advocate being involuntarily celibate as a normative good - that's rather a contradiction in terms, as one presumably can't choose to be unvoluntarily celibate.  But what people are advocating is that "involuntary celibacy" is some kind of psychological condition (or something - I'm not quite sure what exactly the claim is), and thus encouraging people to categorize themselves as such, and to explain their lack of success with the ladies (I would imagine that, for the most part, this condition is imagined to apply to heterosexual males) as being due to having some kind of "condition".  It is this that is being advocated, and this is what's wrong with the article. If nobody can source any of this material to a reliable source in the next week or so, I'm going to nominate for deletion as unverified advocacy of a pet cause. john k 16:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for not specifying what I meant in calling the article a main source. That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that it's usually one of the first, if not the first, result that shows up in search engines and is also part of a popular site, so it is more in the mainstream. I don't see how the existence of involuntary celibacy is that disputable except that many of those who have never experienced it are also unable to imagine it or see it as being possible. It within itself is not a psychological condition but is usually related to patterns of thought and behavior (which is what psychology studies, making it a psychological issue). Involuntary celibacy itself is simply a state of being in which a person (normally an adult since the issues are different with teens) wants sexual activity but has never had any or hasn't had any in a long time for reasons other than choosing not to engage in relationships or sex. There are plenty of people in the world who would fit into this category, but they are still the minority. The whole point of developing the idea and the termonology is not to fabricate a non-existent mental condition as you seem to be suggesting, but to point out that there are people who have things missing from their lives that they want and are having difficulty obtaining. Incel is the state the person is in; the problems causing it are far and in between and show that in most cases the person is lacking more than just a sexlife (otherwise they would be able to "get some" if they just tried like most other people). It is relevant to the rest of soceity because incels are people like anyone else, and understanding what gives them this "social disorder" (as some could deem it) is part of understanding human sexuality and romantic interaction as a whole. 164.58.112.32 17:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider myself involuntary celibate, and post on, but I agree this probably ought to go onto WP:AfD. I think some of the other posters here are missing the point. Wikipedia articles are for subjects that are notable, not for those that just should be. Also remember that as an encylopedia, Wikipedia is a secondary source and should not contain original research (OR).


 * The only strong source I know of is the Donnelly paper already in the references. I believe the full text is available and could be used for citations. Someone else mentioned that her CV lists a book on involuntary celibacy in preparation, for what it's worth. There's also the Gilmartin book on love shyness, but that has its own article, and it may be original research to assert that love shyness = incel. That's something that the AfD reviewers can sort out. Certainly much of the article as it stands is OR, but I don't think it's a lost cause.
 * 70.101.83.12 07:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion tag removed
I believe this page should be deleted. I outlined my reasons, but Kinslayer---whose attachment to this article is difficult to explain---seems to have taken it upon himself to delete my delete claim. This article has no useful information and is covered elsewhere under loveshyness. Furthermore,if it is deemed valid, it should be merged with celibacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.51.239 (talk • contribs)
 * New to Wiki I take it. That's how it works round here. If someone disagrees with a prod, they have the right to delete. If the person still believes the article should be deleted, they take the next step. And it's YOUR involvement that does not compute. You come out of nowehere, slap a load of inappropriate tags all over the article, disregard an AfD decision to keep the article from the 13th of this month and then tell me to leave you alone when I refer you to the AfD to see for yourself.The Kinslayer 14:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago survey
" “Advocating the existence of something whose existence is a matter of dispute is, in fact, advocacy […] as one presumably can't choose to be involuntarily celibate.” (John k, above)." Hi John. All of my adult life I have been surrounded with involuntary celibates, mainly chess-players marginalized by their families and society; too poor to afford a date, let alone to make a catch. Indeed, any guy who masturbates is an “incel” insofar as he wants the real, real thing. This can only mean that millions of adolescents and young males are incel people.

Oh, yes: that would be pretty OR... If you want sources take a look at the Time cover article of October 1994, “Sex in America: Surprising news from the most important survey since the Kinsey Report”.

Is there a living, breathing adult who hasn’t at times felt the nagging suspicion that in bedrooms everywhere, on kitchen tables, in limos and other venues too scintillating to mention, other folks are having more sex, livelier sex, better sex? Maybe even that quiet couple right nest door… (p. 44).

[...] says Toby, a 32-year-old graduate student from Syracuse, New York, who like 3% of adult Americans (according to the survey), has never had sex. “These findings may be liberating for a lot of people. They may say ‘Thank God, I’m not as weird as I thought’” (p. 46).

And [the Chicago survey] may even wake many others a bit less anxious above what’s going on in the bedroom next door. (p. 50)

Don’t miss that study. From my experience with so-called losers (more accurately, cast outs, people with low self-esteem due to grave abuse in their childhoods, society’s victims) I know all too well incel is a reality. As I have stated in my WP user page, this sort of thing ―not wanting to see the subjective realities, willful blindness― speaks terribly of academic psychology and (pseudoscientific) psychiatry.

―Cesar Tort 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference: Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T, & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 189.140.209.121 07:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Pekar book
I removed references the book by Arthur Pekar for two reasons:

1. They are off topic, as Mr. Pekar's self-description is of a person who is asexual, not incel. In the preview of his book at authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~15941.aspx, Mr. Pekar says things such as "I had no interest in sex like other boys" and describes being nauseated as an adult when his therapist tried to coach him on sexual foreplay.

2. Authorhouse appears to be a self-publishing / "vanity press" site. While a few self-published books are cited in their respective fields, I get the impression that "vanity press" offerings generally fall short of the spirit (if not the letter) of Wikipedia's policies of "notoriety," reliable sources, etc.

68.40.40.172 03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Pleasantly surprised
I am pleasantly surprised that a formal term for this situation exists although it is disheartening that research into it is lacking at the moment. As someone in this situation, I can say it is quite frustrating. The article suggests a problem of personality (shyness/withdrawal, socially abrasive behavior) or gross physical deformity are some things that can put a person into the category of involuntary celibacy. Neither of these apply to me as I've been described as approximately average looking and generally considerate towards others, and I have approached many women for dates and sex. I wonder how common cases more like mine are and what the best ways to ameliorate such a situation are.--NeantHumain 22:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that Wikipedia is no soapbox. Thank you. —Cesar Tort 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One way to cure might be to meet some women who suffer from Sexual addiction, although this could backfire if you end up curing them. See also Gynoid for a possible long-term solution for . --Teratornis 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Tags
This article remains a total and complete mess. Many of the claims made are entirely unsourced, some are rather despicable, and the whole thing remains an advocacy piece for the concept of "involuntary celibacy" as some kind of quasi-medical condition. Yuck. john k 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * john k: I only read the Time cover article long time ago. It's not considered a medical condition.


 * To the editors of this article: Why just don't bother to go to the library, get a copy of the Chicago report pointed out above, and source the article?


 * To the average reader: I am surprised to see that the commonsensical argument that every single teenager male who masturbates is, by definition, an involuntary celibate fails to be a no-brainer: since he wants the real thing. And the same can be said about the older people who buy pornography: they want the real thing but are poor enough to make a catch or pay the expenses of a date. Some of them don't even own a car. It looks that, unlike the Chicago report, many people love to blame the victim even in sexual starvation!


 * —Cesar Tort 00:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You talk a Lot of sense, Cesar Tort. In all your posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.253.57 (talk) 12:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Among the various comments and attempts made to clarify "involuntary celibacy", very few if any posters have suggested that I.C. is or could be a kind of epiphenomenon or by-product or symptom of another condition(s); for example, the only means by which I personally came into contact with this term was through the related term "Asperger's Syndrome". Having been diagnosed with A.S. within the last month, I as an adult of age 34, conducted research and now have a kind of "explanation" for my virginity and complete and utter lack of experience with dating, intimacy, etc. I would have to argue that, regardless of whether one wants to "categorize" "Incel-ness" as some sort of "condition", it has definitely been established that "Aspergers" is a "verifiable" condition or "diagnosis" and can be used as a connector to "Incel"...it certainly SEEMS that the close relationship between the two is more than coincidental. And "Incel" of course can also perhaps be the result of other underlying conditions (i.e. avoidance, social anxiety, phobias, etc)...So, for the sake of the truth of this article, the actual reality of personal "lack of sexual activity" is probably better defined through the definition of Other terms, many of which actually do qualify as "psychological conditions"....I have experienced more clarity and enlightenment into my own self-evaluation by trreating "celibacy" as a product of "Asperger's". Just as "clinical depression" may also manifest in the "symptom" of "involuntary celibacy". the problem is this: what is the criteria for considering "I.C." as a condition in its own right, as opposed to simply a state of affairs that comes about as the result of a "condition".

-Matt (crimsonking22)

Thoughts on the issue, suggestions for improvement (finally, something relevant)
I think that this article could come a long way from where it is now, with a little work and a lot of restructuring. And, I think that it would be a pertinent and important article, since, like most other articles humans seem to find highly intriguing (war, entertainment, sex), it appears to be rather relevant to the human condition. That being said, here are some ideas for improvement:

The first thing this article needs to establish is whether or not the subject in question, involuntary celibacy, is a real phenomenon. If so, to what extent? Who is affected by this phenomenon/condition, and why? Is there any historical evidence, or at least empirical/circumstancial evidence of this condition?

Even if InCel may not be the most thoroughly documented or accepted idea in the world, the idea still plainly exists, with us as evidence. Making good use of the term "concept" over the term "condition" may help cease some of the debate and problems arising from the general vague-ness (vaguity?) of the article's subject.

It might be a good idea to denote that InCel is, in fact, a widely debated "condition", (as evidenced by this very discussion page), and to list the proponents beliefs on either side. So long as NPOV is followed as completely as possible, and weasel words aren't used, it should be safe to list both believers and non-believers' opinions in this phenomenon.

After this section, dealing with the reality or concept of InCel, it might be a good idea to list the common identifiers of the condition, as well as any other pertinent and relevant information.

After that, touch on why InCel is not currently recognized as a true condition, and what other "true" conditions exist that experts tie into the broad InCel category.

It should be concluded with a reminder of the current non-acceptance of the condition by psychology professionals, but noted that, like many other mental conditions, that could always change.

And for those who may be curious, I, personally, believe InCel may be a real phenomenon, but not a true condition, for the simple fact that people are incredibly varied and unique, and InCels may simply be unlucky enough to not bump into the people in which they "click" with. Furthermore, just like a schizophrenic is (theoretically, bear with me here) unable to know that they are insane, an InCel is likely unable to know whether they are attractive or unattractive, and to which extent. Everyone can judge themselves to a certain degree, but not one of us can really look at ourselves from the eyes of another. And, for the record, I'm currently sexually and romantically unsatisfied, but I don't think that the situation is completely *hopeless*. I'm not even two decades old yet, I've had a couple of sexual partners, and my future looks...moderately bright, all things considered. I figure, odds are I'll hook up with another girl at some point, probably in the not-so-distant future. Unfortunately, I live in a fairly small town, and unless you go to great lengths to meet truly new people, you end up just running into the same people constantly at different places.

Blah! Sorry, enough about me. Anyway, let's get this article turned into something more than a pity-rant and into something an encyclopedia can use! Sorry about my spelling and grammar, it's late and I'm tired. --69.92.19.76 04:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't identify as involuntary celibate but I support the usage of the term (just to dispute the criticisms that it's only incels that use it, which is a pretty lame criticism anyway). Furthermore, it sounds like "incel" is an accepted abbreviation of it, as a known term. (even if it's partly the past presence on Wikipedia that helped generate that usage, removing it now wouldn't change that it's now used significantly.) And there are really quite obscure things on wikipedia (often about technology... it's easy to cite the internet if you're on it) ... &mdash;Isaac Dupree(talk) 16:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)