User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy/Archive 2

Morrissey
Morrissey (singer The Smiths + solo) has said a plenty that he was involuntarily celibate... as i cannot be bothered to write anything just thought id mention it. I believe it exsists... but it is more probably linked to love-shyness, although distinct it maybe over laps that.

It is extremely unlikely that a rock star would be involuntarily celibate - they have huge numbers of opportunities for all kinds of sex with various types of people on a very frequent basis. It is likely the best profession to be in regarding finding lots of sexual partners. F W Nietzsche (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Morrissey has never said he is involuntarily celibate, beyond discussions of his teenage years. During his musical career he was openly celibate, but not involuntarily- infact, I'm certain the past five years he's been open that he's no longer even celibate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.153.119 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"May also resort" or "may also be urged"? I think not
"Involuntarily celibate people (especially heterosexual men) may also resort to telephone scatalogia, voyeurism, frotteurism, stalking and rape."

I don't know what version of this part is more inaccurate, this current (Jun 19th 2008) version or the version read before Apr 13th 2008 that said these people "may also be urged" to those behaviours instead of "may also resort" because 1: the fact that those behaviours are so socially unacceptable that they were criminalized, and 2: I don't think that even the majority of "incels" feel urged to such behaviours.

So I think a more accurate version possible of this text is "Some few involuntarily celibate people (specially heterosexual men) may also feel urged to resort on telephone scatalogia, voyeurism, frotteurism, stalking and rape.", so I decided to edit the article with this text.

Oh, and I also changed "especially" by "specially" (¿was this an error of spanglish?). Ginta suou (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would remove this portion entirely. The sources it cites don't seem to link these activities to involuntary celibacy at all. 67.183.179.254 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Does long-term involuntary celibacy often cause paraphilias in people who would otherwise be free of any abnormal sexual behavior / desires? F W Nietzsche (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are paraphilias more common in incels than in the general population? If not, then there isn't really a case to say that being incel causes such perversions / abnormal sexual behavior. Even if paraphilas are more common in incels, it may be that paraphiles are more likely to be incels because of their unnatural desires, rather than the celibacy itself causing the paraphilias. In any case, most incels are not paraphiles; being the victim of involuntary celibacy is not shown to prove that that person is likely to commit sexual crimes, which the first sentence on this section implies. Although the large majority of incels are straight men, said sentence states that other incels - women and LGBT people - would, if incel, be much less likely to commit sexual crimes; that I see no evidence for. If involuntary celibacy does cause paraphilias in some, then it would be the case in incels of both genders and all orientations. F W Nietzsche (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion
I want to propose a new external link that would lead to this site: http://theincelproject.blip.tv./#977157

Although it is a video web blog, I believe it has more than a little relevance to the topic of involuntary celibacy. (Indeed one personality described in this entry even makes an appearance.) Please feel free to review the site and list it, if it meets your approval. Thanks.IncelMan (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted results
It seems there is some struggle around this section, so I guess people need to talk about it. The section in question is contains some pretty grave allegations that are not supported by any of the linked articles, nor by the linked wikipedia pages or the wikipedia page on Sexual fetishism. I can only conclude they are based on prejudice. I don't feel like fighting wars over it, but there any other reason it was reverted, other than a lack of edit summary? LeonMT (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "grave allegations" are directed towards a very large and undefined number of people. Certainly, there is foundation for this. E.g. if you read Rape you will see that an urge for satisfaction is one of the proposed motives. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Motivation for rape article mentions sexual satisfaction as a possible motive for the act, but says nothing specifically linking it to involuntary celibacy. The urge for sexual satisfaction is a common trait among many groups, so you may as well add a tidbit in hundreds of articles stating that they may become rapists. And that still doesn't resolve the fact that none of those other linked articles suggest celibacy as a possible cause at all, involuntary or otherwise. Recommend this section be removed unless a reliable link is proven to the subject of this article. 67.183.179.254 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources don't seem to supprt the assertions. They don't mention involuntary celibacy as a cause for the results. I'm removing this section pending better sourcing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Law Lord has apparently decided unilaterally to put it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.196.156 (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the sources that I checked that that didn't mention involuntary celibacy. I put a quotation request to see what it says in the cited book. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the current version. I do not think anybody would disagree with the fact that involuntary celibacy might be a cause for the mentioned acts. Certainly, I think it is important that the article deals with the unwanted results since these are the things that have the greatest impacts on other people's lives. Get my meaning? Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless sources are found that material should be removed too. All sorts of things might happen in this world. Wikipedia only covers those that have been reported in reliable sources. Law Lord, would you please quote the text in  A Natural History of Rape that supports the assertion that rape is an unwanted result of involuntary celibacy? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion, as so many others, is a great example of why Wikipedia is a stupid project with stupid anally retentive people as a whole (no, this is not a personal attack because it is not directed at any one person, but rather sound criticism stating the obvious).


 * Do you actually doubt that those actions (telephone scatalogia, voyeurism, frotteurism, stalking and rape) are sometimes caused by involuntary celibacy? In my view, nobody in their right mind would doubt that these things sometimes happen because of involuntary celibacy. In fact, the whole point of having an article about involuntary celibacy is to show involuntary celibacy as one of the reasons behind all kinds of sexual acts, also unlawful ones. If you disagree with my premise, then that is fair enough. You do not think rape is every caused by involuntary celibacy? Of course it is. If you agree with me then you should find some sources instead of wasting my time in a stupid debate about something pretty obvious. The source I was referring to is this: Motivation_for_rape. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree with your assertion that a lack of sex leads to sex. That'd be like saying fasting leads to eating. To an extent it's true, but you're going beyond that and are sayin gthat a lack of sex leads to fetishistic or violent sex. I'm not a sexologist. If one has studied the matter then I'd be happy to include their findings. But if there are no sources that link involuntary celibacy to rape then this material shouldn't be in the article. Again, can you quote the book you cited to support the assertion? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the the above statement, "In fact, the whole point of having an article about involuntary celibacy is to show involuntary celibacy as one of the reasons behind all kinds of sexual acts, also unlawful ones" is not appropriate in referring to the encyclopedic article itself. An encyclopedia is a reference work of factual knowledge - the "point" of any article contained in one should not be to suggest relationships or draw conclusions. Namati (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Same link, I have already given you, "Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power." --Law Lord (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What does any of that have to do with involuntary celibacy? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous sentence is "Though anger and power are believed to be the primary motivation for most rapes,[7] Richard Felson and James Tedeschi contend that sadism is a significant motivation to rapists." Are you saying that involuntary celibacy leads to sadism? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

<-- Furthermore, Felson is not the author of the citation in this article. The citation here is: What does that book say on the topic? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thornhill R and Palmer C. (2000). A Natural History of Rape. Cambridge: MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-20125-9


 * (I am going to assume good faith and answer your question without commenting on the complete lack of ... behind it.) No, the important part of my quote is this, "the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power". In other words: those who need sexual satisfaction, i.e. those living in involuntary celibacy, commit rape. --Law Lord (talk)

04:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good faith has nothing to do with it. A core policy of Wikipedia is "verifiability". I checked the The other sources you added didn't mention it either. That means the material is unsourced. As for this theory you have, it is not directly linked to involuntary celibacy. A man could have had sex in the morning yet want more sex in the afternoon. Is eight hours without sex involuntary celibacy? That'd seem like a stretch. Until this material is sourced it does not belong. Arguments for why it is logical and doesn't need sources run afoul of another core policy, WP:NOR. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. Can we also say that overeating, acne, lower back pain, and beastiality result from involuntary celibacy?  The assertion that some involuntary celibacy might lead some people to commit acts of sexual perversion could also be made towards voluntary celibate people, such as priests, or the overly religious.  There is no reason to even mention these unsourced "unwanted results".  In any given population there will be criminals and perverts and the sexually disturbed.  If one decides these unwanted results should be ascribed to involuntary celibates should they also not be additionally ascribed to closet homosexuals who are likewise unable to express themselves sexually?  It would seem that this is a particularly illogical argument and the entire "Unwanted Results" section should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.196.156 (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that this dialogue occurred some time ago and does not reflects the article, but I want to comment here anyway just in case this kind of connection is made again in the future. Connecting involuntary celibacy to rape also opens the door to a kind of argument about rape that resembles victim-blaming (ex. "I raped him/her because I have a right to sex, and he/she or many men/women denied me."). If there are studies uncovered in the future that make a good case for involuntary celibacy as causing rape then I would understand its inclusion here, even if dangerous conclusions could be drawn from it. Even still, the dominant academic discourse surrounding rape is about power, and I think it might be a mistake to not include that as a caveat. "Sexual desire" as a possible motivation is not explicitly separated from the possible motivations of power or sadism, as one can sexually desire to be sadistic towards or power over another. The assumption that human beings might have an inherent right to sex denies consent, while the assumption that humans all need or want sex denies the reality of many who are voluntarily celibate. Shellyquade (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sex-ratio a factor
I want to add something about China's and India's situation with the imbalance male to female sex ratio. It is a factor after all.

With China's 40 million extra pair of men (assuming it they are all or mostly heterosexual), it has been cited and mentioned on other wikiarticles stating that they have "no hope" of finding a female spouse or a female sexual partner.

Speaking of heterosexuality, it 'may' actually benefit the homosexual males or heterosexual females in finding a male partner.

I think it is worth adding something about that on this article.

88.105.116.77 (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What I think is that involuntary celebacy is a STATE OF MIND that a person is in. The pathology of the state can be due to external stimuli or due to some unpleasant factors.  For example if a person can be aversive to women because he may have had a breakup in his relationship, not necessarily with his girlfriend or wife, but even with his parents.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.160.154 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The excessive number of males is an advantage for heterosexual females and homosexual males (which should be noted in the article), but the vast majority of involuntary celibates are straight males, so the statistical dispartity in the demographics is, overall, a massive disadvantage to society (which should also be stated on the article). F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that the majority of involuntary celibates are straight males. Firstly, if a statement like is to be added to the Wiki it will need to be reliably referenced.  Secondly, I suspect that most women in the same situation suffer in silence and your retort to that is based on a very male centric view.  Although I do think that it is highly likely that guys, in Western societies at least, must ask many more women out before they get a date and that men who are too self consious to women out are more likely to be involuntary celibate.  On the other hand one can argue that women are socialized not to ask men out on dates thereby reducing their chances of escaping this condition.--Discott (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject banner spam
I have removed the banner for WikiProject Medicine from this article again. There is an anon editor that apparently sees spamming articles with the maximum number of tangentially related projects from WP:WikiProject Council/Directory, plus {[tl|todo}} and usually talk header (even on empty talk pages) as his/her calling in life. I've left many messages, but the IP address changes daily, and apparently the anon hasn't gotten the message.

I ask regular editors here to persistently remove the WPMED banner from this page. The fact that this social problem makes some people deeply unhappy does not make it a medical issue. Poverty, war and injustice also make people deeply unhappy, but they are not medical issues, either. See our article on the medicalization of everyday life for some background. See also WP:WikiProject Council/Guide and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject for more reasons why banner spam in general is undesirable. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)


 * WikiProject History and WikiProject LGBT studies continue to be added by the same IP editor. Please remove those as well. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased
I believe this article is extremely biased. It seems to focus the subject of involuntary celibacy on heterosexual men of America. It doesn't even begin to mention heterosexual men of other countries, heterosexual women, or homosexual men and women. That is something that should be placed in this article, as many homosexuals would be classified as involuntarily celibate. As a matter of fact, I'll act as a direct source. A primary source, in that I would classify as a homosexual male who is involuntarily celibate. I would even go so far as to say that many homosexuals are involuntarily celibate because of the alleged higher concentration of heterosexuals in the world and society's bias against homosexuality. This article needs to be revised to be more inclusive of those who are more affected by the condition.

09.26.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a heterosexual woman who is involuntarily celibate. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, from your comments Grundie, you are too immature to have a serious discussion on sexuality and I cannot fathom why you have not been banned from doing so. Signed, Tired of bitter childish morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And who says that?
 * 88.105.12.68 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That in itself is a biased statement and an example of the very bias I am complaining about. This kind of narrow-mindedness cannot be allowed in a project that is meant for scholarly use. If Wikipedia is to ever be taken seriously, we need to begin by taking it seriously as editors. Someone please edit the article to include a worldwide, broadminded, and scholarly view of the subject.

10.12.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.215.137 (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If a woman is celibate, it's because she has rejected all the men who aksed her out, and/or because she herself hasn't asked enough men out. If any woman asks 20 men out, at least one of them is going to say "yes." On the other hand, there are men who have asked out 20, 50, 100, or more women, and all of them said "no." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Even blind women?
 * What are you basing that statement on? These types of statements do not qualify for legitimate evidence and certainly, sexual narrowmindedness and stereotyping are not qualified to diagnose...sexually-related behavioral problems.

Grundle, you have no clue of what you are talking about. There are women who never get asked out on dates. For whatever reason, the men aren't interested in them and even if they did ask the man out they reject them. This is pretty common amongst single women over the age of 65, but it can start happening as young as 40. A lot of the reason is because men generally prefer to to date younger women. So yes, there are indeed women who can be involuntarily celibate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that involuntary celibacy can truly only apply to men, as men are the ones required to make an effort. I don't care how overweight or unnattractive a woman is, some man will want her, while I know guys who are in great shape, even good looking, but are completely failures with women because they are shy. A woman can be unemployed, live with her parents,etc and still get men, while a woman would think a guy like that is a loser. There literally are some men that absolutely have no way to get sex legally, whereas this is simply a non comprehensible subject to women. You could be a complete loser of a female and still get laid ever night of the week if you want to. But it's simply about sexual economics. There is more demand than supply. The very aggressive guys are the ones that win out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.134.31 (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Involuntary celibacy is not just about sex, it's just as much about relationships. LeonMT (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A woman married to an impotent man could be involuntarily celibate, as she'd be required to break sacred vows in order to have sex. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * She could still to oral and manual without cheating. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you consider oral sex to be sex, then it's cheating. If you don't consider it to be sex (a la Clinton), then it's still celibacy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant she could do oral and manual with her husband. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You all share a very common opinion. But that's what's wrong with it. It is an opinion. It is also a biased opinion. Just because you do not know any involuntarily celibate women does not mean there are none. Just because the idea is unlikely does not mean it does not exist. Simply because today's society practices Vagina Worship, you all assume that there are no women out there that cannot find a man to sleep with. Will Beback also has a point, women married to impotent men ARE involuntarily celibate. I do not contest that of all sexes and sexualities, heterosexual women being involuntarily celibate may be the least likely. I do contest the statement that 'there is no such thing as an involuntarily celibate woman'. That is far too exclusive to be accurate. 21:11 14 October 2008

Involuntary celibacy exists among all orientations and genders. However, the prevalence rates vary massively among those demographic groups. There can be no real doubt that it is most common, by far, in hetero males, and least common among hetero and bi females. Regarding straight women, although the vast majority can easily get plenty of sex, and being below average looks, poor, living with parents, having no car, no job / low-paid, low-status job, lack of social skills etc are not barriers to them getting hetero sex, whereas for men they are. If a married woman wants penatrative sex but her husband is completely impotent, and she is unwilling to have sex with any other man, then she is voluntarily celibate. She is able to have sex, she can find men who would gladly provide her with that, but she chooses not to. However, there are extreme cases where a woman could be involuntarily celibate. They would typically be single women who are hideously ugly and very seriously ill. For example, a woman who has terminal cancer and a colostomy bag, and is confined to a wheelchair - how would she get sex? F W Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From you, apparently. Or are you such a hypocrite to deny a fellow incel sufferer some good laying after you so sissily whined about the tragedy of incels not getting laid?


 * I would Challenge the assertion that "There can be no real doubt that it is most common, by far, in hetero males, and least common among hetero and bi females." There is no objective data or studies to back this up.  It is also perfectly conceivable that the opposite could be just as true as one could argue that women are socialized not to approach men or initiate romantic encounters but are rather socialized to be passive recipients.--Discott (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"For example, a woman who has terminal cancer and a colostomy bag, and is confined to a wheelchair - how would she get sex?" OK. You're right. In extreme cases like that, there are women who are involuntarily celibate. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We are assuming that we are not including false analogies such as your terminal cancer, colostomy bag example. We are speaking of hale, healthy, normal straight men versus straight women, both of whom are in a position where they can afford to think about sex. The difference is that the woman need do no more than put herself out there, be open to meeting men, and she will meet someone eventually. The man has to deal with the competition of his peers and the reality that he is expected to make the first move.137.198.20.56 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first commenter in this section. The follow-up, including the assertion that there can be no women who are involuntarily celibate, barring unfortunate extenuating circumstances, really highlights the problem behind this article and practically all the others that it links to: mainly that there is a strong bias of opinion in the basic attitudes towards sex and partnership, that is overly simplistic at best and misogynistic at worst. Perhaps this is the best that can be produced from writing and thining about sex in strictly abstract, theoretical terms. In the real world, people have relationships (as someone noted above), and in that framework there is a whole galaxy of reasons for any individual to become involuntarily celibate beyond what we can imagine or enumerate here. Much of the bias could be eliminated by renaming the article to refer to "MALE involuntary celibacy." Seeing as many of you seem to feel that this is already implied, perhaps you should make that change. I do not agree that a married woman wanting penatrative sex with her husband who is impotent, or perhaps is separated by a long distance (such as a military tour of duty, or imprisonment) is necessarily disqualified as "involuntarily" celibate just because the potential is there for her to have sex with other men. By that logic, if an undersexed hetero male is offered sex with the imaginary wheelchair troll woman that is described earlier, and he refuses, then he can no longer qualify as being "involuntary" celibate. If you cannot see that bias, you need to seriously think beyond your penis (I am pretty confident there are no women contributing to this article). Furthermore, if we extend that condition we rule out the possibility of ANYONE being "involuntarily celibate" because there are an endless number of hypothetical partners out there. The undersexed hetero male could accept the risk/cost and hire a prostitute. By "choosing" not to, he "voluntarily" remains celibate! How can you say that is different from the married woman "choosing" not to cheat on her husband, and say you have no bias? The conditions are not much different (let's not forget prostitution is not illegal everywhere). In any case, adding all these extra conditions to the definition make it much more nebulous. What if the person is never offered sex? Do we have a "Schroedinger's box" type of condition where you don't know whether a person is really voluntary/involuntarily celibate until a measurement is made (they're offered sex)? This is the kind of chicanery that continues to separate "worldwide, broadminded, and scholarly" articles from the chaff.

Does a married man not become involuntarily celibate when his wife goes on vacation?


 * I agree, arguments like "everyone knows", and "there can clearly be no doubt" are not cited examples or the basis of an objective wikipedia article - they are firmly-held statements of opinion. 50 years ago, "everyone knew" homosexuality was a mental disorder/disease, and likely caused pedophilia.  People may disagree on that now, but medically speaking this has been soundly disproved.  "Everyone knows" is not something to base an article or viewpoint on.  :) 192.139.71.69 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just want to say that I agree this article is biased. There are women who are involuntarily celibate. I do not have a colostomy bag or suffer from some extreme illness, I am twenty two and have a waist size of 26" and waist to hip ratio of 0.7, which all the research claims is supposed to be attractive to people, I have a car and a job and a degree, I try very hard to be a nice person and be kind to others, but I am just not approached. It's the silliest argument ever to say that I could ask twenty guys out on a date and I would be accepted whereas a moderately attractive guy counterpart would not, because it's not all about asking or numbers. It might feel very different for me to think that I had to be the one to initiate, and may not help my dwindling self-confidence at all. And there are many like me who are not going to say "yes" to any random dude who decides to ask. I want friendship, caring, mutual understanding, and trust and so many other things before I want to embark on non-celibate life, not some pathetic wimp who can only talk to me once his blood alcohol content crosses a certain level, therefore I do not sit around in pubs like "normal women" waiting to be bought drinks. So before you come yelling at me saying this is a "choice"-- are all people do not conform to certain roles that society expects them to conform to making "choices", or are they trying to be true to themselves? Homosexuality also used to be called a "choice". So yes, there should be more research on all the other sorts of incels. I never even knew I was one until I read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.31.42 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to chime in that I completely agree with the above poster, although I am coming from the inverted hetero male viewpoint (and I didn't realize I was one until I read this either, a little under a year ago). Involuntary celibacy is not as simplistic as people make it out to be. It can cover both genders and all sexualities (well, okay, not asexuality, obviously), as well as all other demographics. There also isn't enough research out there to determine solid numbers on what demographic is more plentiful, as far as I know, so it's mostly speculation at this point anyway. Involuntary celibacy also has to do with relationships as well as just sex, and on top of that, there is no rule saying that someone can't have standards if they are incel. I'm incel, but I still have tastes and standards and would not have sex/form a relationship (and really, the latter has to be there for the former to happen for me) with just anyone who gave me the option. I still suffer from emotional and psychological issues common to many incels. Involuntary celibacy in my opinion- and yes I freely admit is only an opinion- is a frame of mind. For this reason I feel the "Definition and Psychological Consequences" section is the most important part of the article by far, with emphasis placed more on the latter aspect. If you are unable to establish a meaningful relationship (in your terms, whether it's purely physical or otherwise, or even if it's only a series of one-night stands) despite your best efforts and you are worried about future prospects, then you are incel. For that matter, even if you're relatively confident something will come up eventually, but are feeling severely emotionally limited at the moment and do not know if/when you will get out of it, the you are still incel. Yet it clearly has a different psychological effect on someone than if one is simply suffering a dry spell. It doesn't even matter WHY your sexual/romantic prospects are limited; just that they are limited and you do not wish them to be (and you generally don't know how to change the situation). Finally, I'll state that I agree that this article is biased and more emphasis has to be made on giving a more holistic view, so all demographics are covered without any being favored over the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.231.245 (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It definitely does exist
I can't understand why many people, including several people on the archive of this talk page, claim that involuntary celibacy does not exist, when, on the same page, several real sufferers have detailed what their situations are. Do some people really think that everyone who claims to be incel is lying? The fact that some sexually successful people can't imagine there being people who can't get laid, does not make the condition any less real. For those people, imagine never having any advances made to you by members of the opposite sex, and whenever you approach them, their response is something along the lines of "hang yourself, you ugly piece of shit!" There should be no debate as to the very real existence of this condition, which in some cases causes its sufferers years of severe clinical depression, followed by suicide. Most incels suffer in silence, as admitting that one is incel causes them to be ridiculed as being 'so pathetically inadequate they can't get laid'. People who are sexually successful say things like "I could never go a week without sex", or even "I have to have sex every day" - they can't imagine that some people are forced to endure years of having no sexual opportunities. The last thing an incel needs, when they are already severely depressed, is to be made suicidal by being called a 'sad wanker', a 'loser' or similar. Note that those insulting terms are usually only applied to straight males. There are many thousands of incels, and society forces them to hide and suffer in silence. To make matters worse, there are people who make the ridiculous claim that 'there are no incels, they're just lazy'. Why is there no help available for sufferers? Those are the issues that should be stated, explored and understood on the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that a small minority of people claiming to be incels are actually just too choosy, and could get sex, if they ceased being so picky. However, note that women who complain about not being able to find their mythical 'Mr Right' get loads of (opportunities to have) sex, but many men can't get women of any description to have sex with them at all - for years. Those facts should be clearly explained in the article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

False accusations of homosexuality
There is a 'dubious-discuss' note after the statement that heterosexual incel men may be mistaken for homosexuals in denial. In fact, they are very frequently accused of being homosexuals. Sometimes, people say it as an insult to make them feel worse; the sufferers are already depressed and feel emasculated by being unable to practise their heterosexuality, so sadists twist the knife by telling the sufferer that he isn't even heterosexual. Many sufferers are also subjected to a large number of unwanted advances from homosexual men, who tell them that a homosexual life is better, and that they should 'come out' or convert to homosexuality. For a straight man to be unable to get sex with women, despite great and frequent efforts, whilst homosexual men go out of their way to seek them out and approach them, is a doubly horrible emasculation. I'm following the instruction given by the note in discussing this issue on the talk page - why was it put there in the first place? If anyone (including the person who placed the note) disputes the statement, please explain that on this page. Straight male incels often are unable to prove their heterosexuality, being told by their taunters that they won't believe the sufferer is straight unless they see him with a woman. The Klein grid, respected and used by some experts, asserts that unless a person has recently had intercourse with a person of the opposite sex, they are not fully hetero. The truth is that a fortysomething straight virgin is just as hetero as a man who has had sex with thousands of women, starting when he was thirteen, and has never gone a week without vaginal intercourse. F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "For a straight man to be unable to get sex with women, despite great and frequent efforts, whilst homosexual men go out of their way to seek them out and approach them, is a doubly horrible emasculation. " Hi, sweetie, you may want to examine your preconceptions a little.  There's nothing emasculating about being gay or being liked by gay people.  Suck it up and stop blaming other people for your problems.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.72.181 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Attractiveness / ugliness
On 27 December 2008, I added ugliness to the list of contributing factors; the day after, it was removed by an IP address, who stated that research proves it isn't. Lack of sex appeal was, and is, on the article, but I feel ugliness in particular should be mentioned. The IP's claim is unsubstantiated - ugliness is obviously a major factor, likely the most important factor. It is obvious that a person's looks is a massive factor in attracting potential sexual partners. Being ugly, is, therefore likely to cause involuntary celibacy, especially when combined with other unfavorable factors. This is confirmed by several people who have commented on this talk page (including the archive) - some of whom clearly speak from bitter experience. If there really is a genuine, fair study that states looks is not a factor, it should be submitted to this article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Verifiability. You have to substantiate your claim, not he. Comments by several people aren't good enough(NOR): you need a reliable source. LeonMT (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Physical unattractiveness alone isn't considered a barrier to having sex. I assume that we are simply talking about not being "handsome" as opposed to being severely and seriously disfigured. Battle scars and the like are not counted as they are actually considered in some cultures preferrable (neccesary sometimes to be considered a real man) than not having them. Personality is considered most important. Either raw animal appeal (which means hypermasculinity, have you seen how ugly some of those body builders are?) or suave charm (to which looks may add power).137.198.20.56 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugliness of either gender is not necessarily a factor...especially after liquor is involved lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness alone IS a barrier for women. And it is stated later in the same article that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, agree that physical unattractiveness is almost certainly a contributing factor to involuntary celibacy. There has already been a great deal of research on this in evolutionary biology. It almost appears as if a white lie is being endorsed by the article.

A white lie that incels are attractive can also be used to scapegoat the incel. Such scapegoating is manifest in accusations that the incel is not inherently ugly but behaves in ways that are "self-defeating," such as "thinking negatively," "having low self-esteem," "making assumptions," "not trying," being "passive aggressive," not taking one's medication, or not seeking professional help. This represents, I suspect, a general tendency of a society to try to shift the blame for intense suffering onto the person they are all not having sex with.

Just to clarify a technicality: there is no dividing line between "ugly" and "not ugly." In evolutionary biology, attractiveness is typically measured by one or more (possibly numerically indeterminate) indices of fitness such as height or body symmetry, and is more accurately said to exist on a spectrum, similar to autism.

For the record, I am a 29-, soon to be 30-year-old virgin.

Scott H 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The City Incel and the Country Incel
"Unmarried individual adults living in rural or suburban areas are often unable to find a suitable partner due to social and marriage patterns."

Is this really true? In my (anecdotal) experience, men who grew up in rural areas were the most easily able to find wives. DanBishop (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, people in rural areas often loose their virginity earlier on average than in urban/cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.8.87 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Only if you grew up in that rural area. If you are an outsider who moves to a rural area and you are single, you have an uphill battle. In rural or small town areas, tradition and conservatism are the general rules. This means monogamous relationships, serious courtship, and marriage. People get married sooner and stay together more often. You meet the opposite sex through introductions via friends or family. Many people in rural areas end up marrying someone that they've known since school. For a single man moving to a rural area, it is probable that he will find that all the women are spoken for.208.54.90.226 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism - Support Forum Link
Someone seems to be deleting the link to the Involuntary Celibacy Support forum out of spite. IP addresses seem to be 146.86.36.182, 146.86.36.191 and 24.2.69.67. He posted about it here. LeonMT (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That poster deleted the link out of spite, however, there is no reason for the Incel forum link to be on this page as it is self-promotion. Promoting discussion forums is beyond the scope of Wikipedia per WP:EL. Thus, deletion of the link is not vandalism; it is merely compliance with Wikipedia's policies.

Reference problems
At best, some of the reference information is incomplete. At worst, it looks like some of them may not be good references. I doubt if enotes.com, sexualfront.com and a-team.org in particular are worth citing, and some others as well. I will try to work on this later, but I'd encourage anyone with the time to try to fix it. Шизомби (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, many amateur articles on sexuality cited as references diagnosing major psychological and behavioral problems.

Homosexuality or Transgender Proposal
I propose a header WikiProject LGBT to be added as a additional subject involved. I never heard or come across individuals, with homosexual or transgendered orientation, were celibate against their own will. That doesn't necessarily mean that homosexual or transgendered incel people don't exist!

Please sort this issue out.

88.105.12.68 (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

China Sex Ratio Problems
Can we add tag to this wiki article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_gender_gap#Side_effects_on_female_population

It contains significant and real issues which is too massive to ignore. Even if the link the article can't be added (for whatever reason which may be), then at least there some useful citations in that article to be considered.

Also, have a look at this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_women_of_Asia.

88.105.12.68 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

solutions section
I know I didn't write this section very well, but it IS very important to put out in the open that sex communities do exist and that those communities (there is no sex communities article; perhaps there should be) could be a solution an involuntarily celibate person could take advantage of. I myself would probably not objectively be considered involuntarily celibate, but I do know I lack consistent sexual activity in my life, that that fact is not going to get better on its own and that therefore I must take action of my own accord-- and that I have chosen to examine things like Pleasure Salon to see what it might bring me. There is no reason not to extrapolate from that that if an incel person weren't too personally shy to pursue similar solutions, that that would not then mean that incels in general would have such options; I think it would mean that in fact. Can anyone help re-write the solutions section so it reads and is supported well? Kikodawgzzz (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It would certainly deal with the problem of involuntary celibacy, but not with the problem of involuntary singleness. The distinction needs to be addressed in the article. DanBishop (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough, it treats celibacy as a problem, which is a bit of a cultural judgment. For example, someone who was simply asexual by choice would find this akin to a "solutions" section to an article on homosexuality.  SDY (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that the article by its very nature is supposed to deal not with asexuality-by-choice, but asexuality-NOT-by-choice (incel). Anything like this that isn't a choice on the part of the individual experiencing it is a problem — the article as a whole makes that clear enough, not to mention the many postings on the support boards linked from here and others on the Internet that have plenty of people in total complete and utter despair over their incel and are looking for ANYTHING that will get them the intimacy and connection they so desperately crave (very few of them seem to be searching for prostitutes as "solutions" because really what they want is not just the physical act of sex but the chemicals and connections of intimacy that can only really come from a loving caring partner or partners). In short, Somedumbyankee, your point is inherently moot and also appears rather uninformed. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism, solutions
The "Criticism" section doesn't appear to be criticising anything. (What would it be criticising?) Nor does it say anything terribly useful. Suggest some sort of merge with the "Research" section above it.

"Solutions" is a bit of a loaded title. Perhaps something like "Overcoming involuntary celibacy" would be better?

PollyWaffler (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I add a picture of myself to this article? I'm about as good of an example of a man afflicted with Involuntary Celibacy.
thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.10.215 (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable First Reference
The first reference appeared to dictate much of the tone of the article. It is self-referential in referring back to this article. It is a website promoting a documentary in relation to this topic.

Origin
Involunary celibacy is distinguished perhaps by two main things: One, it is a pattern that goes on forever or almost-forever, and is punctuated by VERY RARE instances of opportunities for sexual intimacy, if it is punctuated by them at all. (That first point is very important because other instances of lack-for-sex last for a few years at absolute most, and usually last for only a few months at a time; I would even go so far as to say that it's pretty rare for anyone but a Don Juan to have sex a few times a week, as some macho people or really-hot-women tend to claim they do... I think they're lying. But a few months at a time with no sex is always normal.) Two, it has significant, long-lasting effects on a person's sexual development. People who want intimate connection but can't get it because no opportunities ever arise no matter how hard they try, get dealt severe blows to their self-esteem, and may even have their sexualities twisted around to where they start looking for sex where it's not appropriate. I'm not calling incels pedophiles or anything like that, but who's to say that an incel who is desperate enough for sex and really angry at not getting it wouldn't eventually resort to sexual assault, open sexual harassment with no regard for the consequences, or even rape? I'm not condoning that behavior but with the level of anger that no-sex eventually generates, what would an incel person at that point have to lose? They're not getting anything anyway. So this is actually why it would be so important to take incel seriously from the outset as a real condition that needs solutions for all (or at least most) who experience it (and who are otherwise normal mentally/emotionally, able to be helped towards such solutions). Maybe they should make sex work legal for those who can verifiably demonstrate that they have not been able to obtain a sexual partner of any kind to any degree for X number of years, and that they are otherwise psychologically clean and SHOULD by all social standards be 'getting some', but aren't. I don't expect such a solution to ever be implemented but this is what I mean by having this stuff be taken seriously by the psych community as something that needs attention as its own situation, similar to how, as the incel info site shows, sleep clinics do study insomnia. If sleep clinics study insomnia, sex research should study incel. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's pretty rare for anyone but a Don Juan to have sex a few times a week, as some macho people or really-hot-women tend to claim they do... I think they're lying." You are clearly incorrect. Plenty of people are in steady relationships, which usually means sex several times a week; in the case of live-in relationships, having sex twice a day is not uncommon for couples with high sex drive. You don't have to be a Don Juan or a supermodel to be involved in an arrangement like this. Secondly, all it takes for an attractive and likable heterosexual female or homosexual male to get sex is to go to a club or bar and hit on a few people until someone takes the bait. An attractive/likable heterosexual male or homosexual woman could do the same with a little more work and slight lowering of standards. You could do this every day of the week if you wanted to. I speak from experience. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Prostitution
"Moreover, many incels deplore their own circumstances but at the same time refuse to visit prostitutes for release because their own psychology finds it to be demeaning and never the way (even considering the situation) to relieve their physiological and psychological need for sex."

If they refuse to visit prostitutes then their celibacy is VOLUNTARY. It's not that these people can't have sex, it's that they can't have the specific kind of sex they feel entitled to. Evidence for that exists on this very page, what with the large number of editors coming forward to claim that women can't be involuntarily celibate because society guarantees them sex.

You can't have it both ways. If a woman who can't find the right person to have sex with is voluntarily celibate then a man who won't sleep with prostitutes is also voluntarily celibate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.147 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there isn't universal agreement amongst the incel support groups that it is impossible for females to be involuntarily celibate, first of all. There are indeed a few females on incel support boards who swear up-and-down that they are everyday, reasonably physically attractive, etc females who for some reason or another go years and years and years and years and years without having sexual contact, romantic experience, etc. I for one am totally open to the idea that females can also be affected by incel, though in my own personal life I definitely know of no one who couldn't simply go out in a low-cut dress and get a guy to fuck her, no matter how long she's been supposedly incel for.
 * In other words, there really is a difference between being incel and being picky. Picky is not being able to have sex with the people you want to have sex with and those people aren't interested in you. Incel is when, no matter how "low" you "sink" or how many "standards" you might "sacrifice", you still cannot seem to get ANYbody without throwing in the towel and paying for it. THAT, for all people here who still don't believe that incel is a valid psychosocial condition, is the fundamental difference.
 * I would argue that incel has always existed, especially among men, but that up until recently, incel individuals did indeed simply "throw in the towel" and go to hookers instead of actually "fighting back" by exposing their condition in written and story form to the world. And now that incel people are doing precisely those things, just like any marginalized group with a minority condition or situation, the incel people get ridiculed by the non-incel "regular" people who belittle them and try to tell them that all they have to do is improve their "game" in order to be able to start having semi-regular sex. It is the lack of seriousness with which incel is treated by the world that must be overcome, first and foremost, before the condition itself, which probably affects many many many more people than even those people themselves would let on, can be confronted in a concentrated manner that ultimately allows some sort of focused set of solutions. I'm not saying all solutions will be the same for everybody, and there will always be needs for things like prostitution, sex circles, sex communities, play-parties etc. etc. perhaps in particular for those who can't seem to get sex any other way. But perhaps at the same time, we'll begin to see a healing of the tendency of incels to become incels to begin with by being able to nip the problem in the bud before it starts blooming (perhaps, for example, psychologists might start inquiring into the sexual development of their teenage patients, just to see how that development happens, and to tell those teens that incel sometimes happens but that it is best that it be avoided so here are a,b,c,d things to do that could help the teen not wind up in that situation later in life). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't have a "valid psychosocial condition" without a detailed definition, and that definition needs to be a part of the wiki, right? So, in terms of the definition, how does going "out in a low-cut dress and get[ting] a guy to fuck her" count as a valid way to escape from involuntary celibacy but paying for sex doesn't?
 * Also I'm confused about what you mean by "fighting back". Is talking about ones involuntary celibacy in public a recognized form of therapy?
 * I am having a very hard time not-attributing your objections to this article's basis as some form of bitterness, good sir. Surely you recognize that there are quite a few professionally-unrecognized conditions on Wikipedia that nevertheless have enough people who experience them for the articles to stay up as valid. Incel is one of those conditions, because incel exists. Eventually, the world will come around to that fact as objective reality, but we aren't there yet, just as at one time intellectuals were not yet convinced that the world is round, but were eventually compelled to accept it. With enough verifiability over time, I'm confident incel will enter the general psychosocial lexicon, and it should be on the basis of wanting to help it get there that you take it upon yourself to improve this article to the best of your ability rather than bashing it. Besides which, no one is going to take your advocacy of incel-is-invalid on a page about incel. You might as well go somewhere else to sulk, because unless you can bring us a wiki-team of scientists to somehow tell us definitively that incel doesn't exist, this article is staying here, because those of us in this world who are incel know it deserves to. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for removal of the page. I'm saying that the page needs to have a detailed and useful definition. Ideally I wouldn't have to ask the talk page why men who refuse to pay for sex are involuntarily celibate while women who refuse to randomly proposition strangers until one of them agrees to sex are voluntarily celibate, ideally that issue would be covered succinctly by the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.244.147 (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no argument with the idea that male and female situations of incel should be treated equally in discussions of incel. I personally have not experienced the phenomenon of females being incel, or of them being incel at rates even a fraction of that of males, but none of that personal experience bears any relation to the objective possibility that the two could be equal and people are just not seeing it/it's not in public/women don't talk about it/et cetera. I agree with this poster in the sense of the idea of incel belonging only or mainly to males being a sexist assumption that should be purged (as much as possible) from discussions and articles on incel. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Allow me to jump in quickly here and put his/her misconception to rest. The reason why soliciting sex via being sexy (the low-cut dress) is considered voluntary yet soliciting sex via currency (the prostitute) is not is obvious: in the former both parties are interested and engage in sex voluntarily; in the latter only one party is interested, thus "voluntary sex" does not happen. Because of this, you cannot consider sex via prostitution to be "voluntary" sex, in the same way you would not consider rape, blackmail, collusive, or coercive sex to be "voluntary" sex (or for that matter, any sex that is obtained for reasons that are ostensibly non-sexual). This is why acting or not acting on these types of "involuntary" ways to obtain sex still leaves one involuntarily celibate 70.27.105.67 (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above statement strikes me as incredibly insensitive and insulting. A person may consent to sex for many reasons other than madly desiring sex; to please a partner, to get something desired, and so on.  Consent is consent.  Lack of consent is rape.Technomad (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem in defining "involuntary celibacy" concerns the notion of free will. Some people go on long hunger strikes as an act of protest, even to the point of starvation. Yet others would despair of even attempting such things. Most people fall somewhere in between. The question of whether the compulsion to eat is "involuntary" rests a lot on this not-always-clear distinction, as does perhaps celibacy.

To give another example, one might decline the option of having sex for reasons of wisdom -- such as knowing that person has an STD, or knowing that person wouldn't like it. It is difficult to say whether these acts of wisdom constitute "voluntary celibacy," considering that the need to act wisely is so pertinent to the rational mind.

Scott H 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Prostitution not an acceptable alternative to incel
If one lives in a society where visiting a prostitute is illegal, then choosing not to visit one should not be considered a valid choice to remain celibate. Rape is also illegal so a man choosing to obey the law is not choosing to be celibate. The law doesn't give him a choice in the matter.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is very true. In the UK, prostitution is not technically illegal but there are numerous peripheral laws designed to criminalise both prostitutes and their clients, so visiting a prostitute in the UK is very difficult, particularly for people who lack confidence. Biscuittin (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, not all incels live in places where prostitution exists. Not everybody lives in major metro areas.  Even those who do live in such areas have to deal with the risk of legal problems; many people these days literally cannot afford an arrest record, due to employment considerations or other such factors.Technomad (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

media guy undertakes 'virginity auction' amidst public anger
This is as good an example as any of what can happen societally when virginity is allowed to persist indefinitely. When thought about deeply enough, the commodification of virginity in this way is a very sick, twisted thing, but equally so, the participants in that very sick, twisted thing have probably been won to it by a personal conviction that they might very well have no other ultimate choice. Which is, of course, as incels tend to argue, the truly sick and twisted thing that is at issue here, psychosocially speaking. On a recent BBC podcast one of the pending participants of this venture even managed to say that his personal circumstances are NOT incel; that opportunities had been there for him in the past but he had not taken them but at the same time he basically wanted to see what finally 'getting some' would do to the direction of his life, especially if it's via a widely-televised media spectacle. It doesn't bear direct relation to incel which is why the link isn't going in any part of the incel article, but doubtless at least one or two of the ultimate participants in this reality-show are going to have been incel up to the point of 'successful bidding' -- and anyone who might have an interest in getting in touch with them to figure out how best their stories could fit into the wiki here, would probably be pretty good to have.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/7704737/Anger-over-reality-television-virgin-auction.html Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

objection to note-citation 1
I'd like to raise a strong objection to the use of note-citation "[1]" as it currently is in this article (specifically, the "1" that stands next to the word incel in the first paragraph), because it links to a site called "Am I Incel?" that has zero citations, zero clinical merit, zero objective verifiability, zero CONTACT INFORMATION (which is ESSENTIAL for any website's reputability!), and so on. Additionally, the site invents terms of its own-- "marcel" being one of them-- that don't even have any colloquial usage, much less official usage, in any of the incel-centric communities that exist on the web. That's not acceptable and invalidates this source.Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

These men are not involuntarily celibate
"Low-status heterosexual men may become involuntarily celibate due to polygamy and serial monogamy by high-status men, leaving a shortage of attractive, eligible, fertile women.[25]"

If they have chosen to reject sexual partners on the basis of their attractiveness or fertility then it is voluntary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.127 (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence
"Limitations and disappointment are often ennobled in television programs and movies concerning the indefinite postponement of sexual and romantic gratification and the delay of dating, marriage and sexual experiences at key transition points during adolescence and young adulthood that seem to be the psychological cornerstones of the involuntarily celibate condition."

This sentence has several verbs and I cannot for the life of me see the main clause. Is the main verb phrase ' are ennobled' or 'seem to be', though I can't make sense of it either way...


 * I've looked again and is it meant to mean something like:
 * "The relevant limitations and disappointment (those caused by the indefinite postponement of sexual and romantic gratification, the delay of dating, marriage and sexual experiences at key transition points during adolescence and young adulthood), which seem to be the psychological cornerstones of the involuntarily celibate condition, are often ennobled in the television programs and movies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.147.239 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted; your language mod in that section (with slight modifications) has been added. :) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Seung-hui Cho
Do you think he was incel?

Also, under Possible contributing factors it says: "The presence of proven psychological disabilities such as social phobias, social anxiety unemployment,[27] which often play a role in preventing courtship." Is it meant to say 'social anxiety unemployment' or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.95.104 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not Approached = Incel? What?
I found this section in the text ''""it also seems that incels are not approached by others for romantic and/or sexual reasons even in situations where s/he is putting him or her self explicitly in social circumstances meant to attract partners, such as bars or clubs[citation needed] or similar large-scale activities. It is said to be this conundrum — both the "cannot successfully approach" and the "never approached" ends of the problem""''.

I'm guessing this was written by a woman or a man with unrealistic perception of the social world. The truth is, most people (non-incels) do not get approached at bars and clubs.

Most (non-incels) do not meet partners by waiting around to be approached, and most (non-incels) never approach people at bars and clubs. I have no idea why this is in this text. It has nothing to do with being an incel. It has to do with not being a "social god".

--77.28.2.213 (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Most non-incels do not get approached at bars and clubs. ...Most non-incels do not meet partners by waiting around to be approached." True, but that being the case for most people doesn't invalidate the special experience incels have of never in their entire lives having successfully approached or having been approached in any circumstance. One cannot generalise and say that since most people do not get approached or approach in bars and clubs, that this therefore means that incels' experience of lack of approach isn't special even within that paradigm. I would question somewhat User:77.28.2.213's implicit claim that "basically nobody gets approached or approaches X for sex"; tell that to the quite-a-few people who DO successfully hit on and take home a stranger from a bar or a party, for example, or the people who drunkenly make out and/or fuck at a party, etc. etc. Just because these things may not happen where you live does not mean they do not exist; for example, people take people home from bars and clubs in NYC all the time. User:77.28.2.213 may not have travelled around enough of the world to see it, but one night stands do occur in general, and specifically don't occur for incels. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incel is not just about sex
I really like this article and the details with which it has been presented. I would like to commend the contibutors and other people involved with this. I think Incel should not just be referenced by considering the sexual encounters. It should be somewhat on a broader scale to include the emotional experience as well. It rather starts from the fact that how well a person is able to create a relationship in which he can have sexual liberation. Sometimes just the assurance that one has access to sex is more elevating than to have actual sex. This ofcouse does not include prostitution. Also if somebody can tell me the researches going on in this field and how can one become a part of this, I would be moe than happy to contribute.Because I think I am the most eligible patient of this. It somehow makes me feel good that I am one of the rare kinds :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.252.228.208 (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally would have preferred the term "involuntary singleness" instead of "involuntary celibacy". DanBishop (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a misnomer though, since those who have trouble maintaining relationships are not one in the same as though who have trouble accessing sex. The conditions may co-exist and yet exist entirely separately (i.e. your incel is likely also invol- single, and yet a chronic deserter, or fringe-society bad-boy may be invol-single yet having sex on a frequent basis - completely different conditions)70.27.105.67 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, involuntary celibacy is a contradiction in terms, since celibacy by definition is deliberate- if you're actively trying to find opportunities for sex, you're not celibate. Celibacy is always voluntary. Your condition is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.193.169 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Argument Validity Under Wikipedia Policies
-One citation is used to assert that incels are on the overall healthy, yet in another argues an increased likelihood of aberrant social sex behavior. This is confusing.

-the contributing factors list only carries one citation, which itself is a news article by a columnist who is not a sexologist in a publication with the header “where your opinion counts.” Wikipedia has a clear policy on this topic “Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources.” Having said that, the contributing factors list seems to be an essential part of having an independent post on involuntary celibacy, rather than a subsection within celibacy. The “early mentions” category could be merged into a scientifically substantiated list of contributing factors (as further examples of validity).

-Wikipedia policy on Neutral point of view (NPOV), “a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects,” requires clear attribution to opinion statements. This article currently relies heavily upon opinion statements and selects possibly outdated (e.g. 1975) material to make key assertions.

-There is a reoccurring general bias that quantity of sex experience is necessary for happiness. With the variety of personal viewpoints and lifestyles that come with postmodernism, I agree some people have this view and some of those are involuntarily celibate but I do not see how all incel can hold such an important view on quantity of sex experience.

-The author has tied prevalence of certain religions in a society to increased incidents of incel. Wikipedia policy states, “Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z." I think it is important to note the only incel who would apply under a religious hegemony argument would be those who: 1) disavow the religion, 2) want the sex, 3) cant get it.

Overall, this article lacks review by experts in the field and if none are forthcoming that alone sheds doubt on the need for a separate entry for involuntary celibacy when it could be easily included in the main celibacy entry(98.218.218.120 (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).

Especial Societies
Excuse me but I clearly see that nobody mentioned the problem of the male and female adults in especial societies like the Islamic ones. In these societies even if a single adult wants to have sex, he is seldom successful. The reason is social and religious barriers. Consider my city, Tehran. Here, building a relationship with a female is very difficult because the only place to find them are universities or workplaces. These places are strictly controlled by government's especial agents. lots of people don't bother themselves to break the rules because they don't want to experience imprisonment, let alone other punitive measures. On the other hand when a lucky guy finds a girl who accepts to have sexual relationship with him, he will face another problem, which is to find a place to do that. In these countries (esp. Iran) you should conceal your romantic or sexual relationship with opposite sex. So finding a place to get laid is another massive problem. I know a lot of my friends who are burning with the desire of having sex but all they can do is just masturbating. Some of them are more than 28. Finding a prostitute is also very hard because it is illegal and if a police agent, a Basiji or a Sepahi force catches you while you're just speaking with a prostitute, you would be in a big trouble. The Iranian society is going to explode because of this problem. The majority of the population is very young and the only solution which the dirty mullahs are putting in front of them is marriage. So the main reason of marriage in Iran is to get laid after all. Those who can't marry (because of the bad economic situation caused by western sanctions and the military totalitarianism of Sepahi corps) should not think about sex at all. Masturbation is also forbidden! so more and more adults are losing their faith in Islam, because they think that this religion is just a barrier to their natural instincts. I could firmly estate that millions of Iranian young people (boys and girls) are extremely burning with sex desire but they can't do anything about it. A lot of psychologists believe that the current generation is mentally imbalanced and most of the Iranians are depressed. I am sure that the main problem is same as the subject of this article! --46.100.62.175 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what - it would be really cool if 46.100.62.175 could gather together Iranian and other Middle-East-based science sources and add a section exactly like what s/he is describing. I think it would be a spectacular addition to this article. I don't foresee it happening, but scientifically/sexologically speaking, I think it would be absolutely fascinating to have in here. Just saying. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the most depressing article on Wikipedia.
Thanks Wikipedia for making me realize that not only is my life ruined I'll also never get better.71.248.232.114 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 71.248.232.114, I personally have at this point joined Fetlife, and although it's not technically a way to actually fundamentally alleviate incel, I have found it is a VERY good way to "escape" it, or at least to "escape" mine. It is not a prostitution site or other "seedy" site; it is basically "Facebook for sexually intense people" or "Facebook for perverts". ;P There are lots of sexually-intense people on that service, both men and women, and through my interactions on the site I have uncovered not one but several ladies actively wanting to have sex with me -- and we have physically consummated that desire in many pleasurable ways, in person, and will likely continue to do so. :) Check it out. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * CREEPIEST COMMENT EVAR 184.152.59.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Err, yes, that is a very constructive follow-up comment indeed. Frankly I doubt anyone who would post on this discussion board particularly needs to hear what others think "morally" about comments left on here (which the term "creepy" invites — questions of 'appropriateness'). Bottom line, if a comment doesn't help you, leave it alone; just because it doesn't help you doesn't mean it might not help someone else. One person's "creepy" might be another person's gold mine. (Not saying it is, just saying to give it more room than this judgemental commenter did.) Kikodawgzzz (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Part of it may be the fault of society for giving people who grow older and older in virginity less and less opportunity to gain experience in showing intimacy.

Scott H 23:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott7261 (talk • contribs)

Counter-Claims by incels in "contributing factors"
Will someone, the person who wrote this section esp., please cite their sources for incels who:

"lay claim to no such issues", "counter that any passive-aggressiveness in them is the result of...", "argue that their self-esteem and self-confidence are just fine" or "argue that their sexual assertiveness is just fine"??

Also, what is the relevancy of including these points? Simply because "most" incels respond with these sorts of reactions and arguments is not a reason to include them as authoritative or treat them as incorrigible truths. Psychologically speaking, there is always the possibility (remote or otherwise) that these incels may perhaps be in "denial", or perhaps engaging in classical projection, or throwing up defense mechanisms, and so and so on. Any psychologist worth his/her weight in office fees will tell you that a mere claim by someone, anyone, can be conditioned and/or explained by other mental drives or reasons.

But then again, the article doesn't state these phenomena; it merely presents the source-less "incel reactions" as if they were truths without psychiatric causes.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.135.103 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The allegation that incels may have psychological problems they aren't admitting to — while it's by no means impossible that that would be the case — inherently assumes that incel must have an objective cause, and cannot be "causeless". This is because, if incel is causeless, it becomes, to people with these views, nonsensical. Everything else in the entire history of the universe has definable reasons if enough research is done, so why not incel too, right? It doesn't make sense for incel not to have reasons attached to it. What incels themselves have been trying to stress to people around them is that however unbelievable it may be, most incel doesn't have reasons attached to it, no matter how deep anyone digs. It absolutely confounds the mind. Please re-read the line where it says "..whose frustration is a product of their lack of sex, and not vice versa", and try to take it seriously for once. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, those claims appear to be unfounded in any first-hand footnote-ing. I merely would like to know who these people (read: "incel" here) are who make the claims that they are perfectly normal when it comes to attributes like self-esteem, self-assertiveness, and self-confidence. Are they telling the truth or being genuine and authentic with us? The article merely states it without showing evidence or criteria. PLEASE source these individuals who make these claims. That's all I'm asking for. Sure I, being a "40-Year-Old Virgin" could easily say all of those positive things about myself, but there is always the chance that it is my own ego, or naivete, even a deluson. One can't just throw them out there into the article and accept them as truth without some authoritative support by CITING relevant sources, preferably PUBLISHED sources. Who said these things and what were the contexts? It doesn't say. :(

Why should a potential reader, who may or may not be incel, be inclined to believe what they read, when there are no CITATIONS or NOTES. Who knows, there may be some incels out there who actually believe the opposite of these claims, yet remain incel nonetheless. There should be a section added describing the debate between whether frustration and depression are a CAUSE of lack of intimacy, or vice versa. I've noticed that people often tell incels that "there is something wrong" with them, that sounds like a mental disorder of some sort. It would REALLY be interesting to see the results of a classical Freudian psychoanalytic sesssion with each of these incels, to get to the root of their issues. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.135.73 (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is just a roundabout way of saying you don't believe the basis of this article and that incel people are fooling themselves and need to get their act together sexually -- or that if it is true, incel people have got to prove they're normal before asserting that their situation is something to be taken seriously. In other words you are one of the many who refuse to have respect for this being something real. One can't prove a negative. One can't prove that God does not exist (nor that He does, but that's different). Similarly, you cannot "cite" incel, at least not without a wide-ranging sexological study. In principle I agree that the assertions should carry citations at every turn, but as the article notes, the existing citations link to the ONLY even halfway-clinical study in existence on incel. Until there are more studies, and more extensive studies, that flesh out the incel situation, we aren't going to get more in an article like this in the way of 'proof' except for more aggregated anecdotal self-proclaimed evidence garnered mostly from the incel population. Frankly it doesn't really matter that you would like to see all these incel people be psychoanalysed to verify that they are all normal like the article states-- don't you think the incels themselves would like to see similar studies undertaken? Go tell the sexologists to get their stuff together and start in on a concentrated study. Until then neither I nor any other editor of this article can help you. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Oh, also, no need to go ad hominum on me. However, it is a sensitive topic/issue. First of all, for all of us 38+ year-old-virgins out there who cannot secure a date with a woman, least of all have sex or a girlfriend (sigh!), the bottom line is: just because someone (it doesn't say who) anecdotally makes the claim that his/her "self-confidence", "self-esteem" or "sexual assertiveness" (whatever that is) are just a-okay, doesn't always make it so. Just ask any psychiatrist. I don't understand how "respect" has anything to do with failing at sex or being a virgin at age 38, both of which I happen to "suffer" from. And I actually don't think that all of those characteristics are strong in me, so why isn't that point-of-view included? Who's respect are you looking for? Are you saying that I have "no respect" for my own condition? For some reason, I don't think that people who read this article and are not incel would have any issues or problems with respect. Usually, they just laugh and say, "What the heck is wrong with you?" lol   Are you incel? If so, then you are wasting your time looking for "respect" for this state of being called "incel" from readers. I suppose that incels should respect each other, perhaps even bond in some way with each other. Who knows, it could be therapeutic. At least the article does contain a box at the top stating that it "needs additional citations for verification". That is a good caveat. And, last, remind me again, who is saying that "everything in the history of the universe" has "definable reasons"? Surely not the contemporary scientific community, where there are actually more questions than answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.135.224 (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This back-and-forth could go on forever, and actually, from the looks of the article talk page archive, it already pretty much has. Here are the bottom lines as I see them:
 * Empirical data needs to be collected by sexual scientists, who are referred to in the science community as sexologists, before the, if you will, 'clinical existence' of involuntary celibacy, as opposed to just 'self-justifying lazy/disturbed people who can't get laid', would be able to be proven. Due to the empirical data not having been collected in any significant form, the only possible 'proof' to be had is aggregated anecdotal evidence, which I absolutely freely admit is not great at all to have on Wikipedia, where all things listed are supposed to have -- or are supposed to eventually collect and contain-- as much objective evidence as humanly possible.
 * Despite there being no empirical data on this topic, this article must still stay up and active, no matter what those who disbelieve its premise might think of it, because in a purely objective sense, it may be a necessary safety valve for those who are incel who would otherwise find either nothing on the internet pertaining to their situation or would only find loony self-obsessed message boards populated by self-described incels who are clearly mentally-emotionally unstable and who reinforce each others' mutual instability and a resultant horrendous attitude of misogyny and sexism (and there are several of those; they know who they are), and so on. In other words, this article may be, unbeknownst to any of us, something that keeps dangerously desperate incels from killing themselves. Wikipedians can't afford to take down, purge, or fundamentally restructure an article with that kind of importance simply because it lacks the empirical data its arguments scientifically need.
 * In the vein of the above, there should be a concerted push to enter the involuntary celibacy article into some sort of sweeping article improvement drive in the Wikipedia Sexuality section. I've tried in various ways over the past year or two to get the article looked at seriously in this way, but have failed thus far, which is really weird, considering that the Sexuality article community here should have an inherent interest in the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy in not too dissimilar a way from how a sleep research clinic (as it says in this article) has an inherent interest in insomnia.
 * No matter what does or does not happen with this article, there are always going to be the incels who insist adamantly that incel does exist as its own unique, valid, honest, non-self-deluding condition; the non-incels who insist just as adamantly that incel does not exist and that those who claim to be incel are making up excuses for their lack of success ultimately have only themselves to blame for not getting laid; and those who do not know. Again, until empirical data is collected via a sexological research study of as many incels who fit the outlined definition of incel as possible, there is, from what I personally see at least, no real way to resolve the issue of provability. It's really a shame, because like most intelligent beings, I wish to see verifiable proof of any claimed phenomenon, be listed alongside and amidst that claimed phenomenon. There is no reason why incels should have to resort to stamping their feet and shouting "It does exist!!" whenever they are challenged on the question of this condition's fundamental legitimacy. The longer this remains the case, the longer the incel 'population', if it can be called that, will remain in a position of weakness when trying to bring this situation into the public eye, whether it be via Wikipedia or anywhere else. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammer mistake
Please remove the bold word. I couldn't find the edit button :(

"even to "learn" their own responses to and patterns in romantic relationships" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.159.108 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually not grammatically incorrect at all..... "Responses to romantic relationships on the one hand, and patterns within romantic relationships on the other hand" is the extended version of that phrase... Additionally, I would recommend -- if you want to correct a grammatical mistake-- that you not do it by misspelling your thread title ("Grammer"). Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead correct?
This article is my first encounter with any written or oral treatment of this subject (other than as dramatized, in movies or whatever). I'm wondering whether the lead is inconsistent with the article's remainder. I'm asking about the opening paragraph's second sentence, which is as follows:


 * The term [involuntary celibacy] (which is sometimes shortened to incel) describes those who, despite being open to sexual intimacy and potential romance with someone and also making active, repeated efforts towards such an end, cannot cause any such end(s) to occur with any significant degree of regularity—or even at all.

First of all — a point of diction: Shouldn't that read "denotes the condition of those who" etc. — not "describes those who"?

My main point is that the sentence should possibly be changed to something like the following:


 * [Involuntary celibacy] (which is sometimes shortened to incel) denotes the condition of those who, despite being open to sexual intimacy and potential romance with someone — and who might even be making active, repeated efforts towards such an end — cannot cause any such end(s) to occur with any significant degree of regularity—or even at all.

I say this because the article seems to indicate that the term is applied to persons who have abandoned the very pursuit of "sexual intimacy and potential romance." In speaking of "Living conditons that make privacy, and thus sex, impossible," the article's section headed "Possible contributing factors" speaks of:


 * conscious or unconscious assumption on the part of the incel that because his or her living conditions make privacy impossible, there is no point in either initiating or accepting sexual advances because no place realistically exists where sex could happen.

From that, I gather that a person who acts on a conscious assumption of that type and who thus abandons pursuit of sex is classed as an involuntary celibate. Such a person, I suppose, could still be said to be "open to" sex — open to it in the sense that she or he would not refuse it if it were somehow to become available; but the person is not making active efforts, repeated or otherwise, to obtain it.108.36.209.26 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reword or remove
'Somewhat relatedly, in any culture lacking liberal attitudes towards sexual expression and fulfillment, usually based upon religious principles (for example strict Sharia law societies, fundamentalist Christianity, hasidic Judaism and others), the effects of "enforced" lack of sex can have even worse general societal consequences.'

Though I personally agree with this statement, it is not backed by any citation and appears biased. It should be reworded at the very least, if not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.46.97 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition and psychological consequences
There is no sense in stigmatizing and demonizing people stuck in this condition by publicly associating them with serial killers and other such phenomena by pointing to a few individual cases where people who committed violent crimes or suicide appeared to have been incel. Let's stick with facts and leave out assumptions and unsupportable extrapolations that attempt to pass for "research" about this phenomenon. There is essentially no statistical information about involuntary celibacy available, let alone details of the population like whether or not they are more likely to be dangerous or commit suicide. 71.60.82.180 (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The section you're removing is hardly demonizing involuntary celibates, no more than pointing out that being poor can lead to starvation demonizes the poor. It points out the negative effects of involuntary celibacy, usually citing case studies involving multiple people, and only a couple of times citing notable cases that caught the public eye.
 * Please read WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Until you can provide sources demonstrating that the material in the article is wrong, it stays.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What if someone posted referenced details of a a few violent crimes committed by people of a specific religion on the wiki article of that religion, passing it off as an indicator that people of that religion pose a potential public safety threat? That is essentially the kind of cognitive leap that this material is doing here. The problem is that the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy has barely been studied at all. There are no available statistics, and they understandably would be extremely difficult to even begin to reliably collect. A few stories about suicides and killers who might have been incel do not qualify as researched information about involuntary celibacy. Just because they are cited statements doesn't mean they belong here. 71.60.82.180 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Without sources for your assertions, those reasons do not counter the sources in the article. What the article does is point out that people facing a particular hardship are more likely to end up in negative situations.  Again, it's no different than pointing out that poverty can lead to starvation.  Seeing how many of the sources were published by universities, it seems fairly likely that those sources did have access to enough numbers to make judgements.  Knocking down errors (or even perceived errors) in older works is an easy way to advance in the academic world.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there are no sources for ANY such assertions. As I already said, I'm not arguing the validity of the sources cited, I'm saying that they are being passed off here as proof of an assertion about a phenomenon about which there are no statistics. No facts or figures exist on the mortality rate or crime rate of involuntary celibate people. It's ridiculous to give a single high-profile suicide as proof of a high mortality rate (or even of a high suicide rate). 71.60.82.180 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And what I'm saying is that your assertion "there are no such sources" needs good evidence, since many of the sources in the article are published by Universities and Academic journals which do not simply allow their authors to make stuff up. Either a later source saying that there is no such data, or an examination and summary of the sources to prove that none of them individually and directly support what's in the article or do not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines.  I will go through and do that for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

TV Tropes as a citation?
Does nobody else see a problem with this? That can't be a reliable source, since they don't require those on their Wiki format site.163.160.107.179 (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've removed all the unsourced and poorly material from that section, and will go to check others. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, TV Tropes can be a reliable source since examples are being listed. Chester polarbear
 * No, TVtropes is user-generated content with no editorial oversight or any sort of fact-checking, and completely fails WP:RS. The only time anything on TVtropes could be used as a source would be the site's own statements about themselves where it would not be self-serving, where it would not involve questionable claims about themselves or any claims about others parties, and where it would not be WP:UNDUE weight.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * TVtropes, as fun as it is, is not a RS. If you follow their links, you might find some of them to be RS, but many are not. htom (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with this wording
"Most incel people are not physically unattractive,"... even though this is sourced, wouldn't this be a POV? Attractiveness is completely subjective. This needs to be reworded. yonnie (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Incel is a Real Condition
I'm just writing this to inform the public that Incel is a real condition. Unfortunately, somebody on the internet is giving it a bad name at http://thatincelblogger.wordpress.com/. I fear some of his critics will vandalize this article.

I didn't talk until 4, and didn't make my first best friend until 10. Nobody would call a person in a wheelchair or a person with schizophrenia "lazy". I know that the unemployment rate for Incels is much higher than the general population, to show how bad this problem is. It's an uncomfortable topic, especially in America, but denying its reality will make things worse for everyone. Not only are incels themselves suffering, many want to contribute to society but can't find the means.

68.60.98.183 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite
I recently rewrote a substantial portion of this article to deal with the significant concerns around wording and lack of scholarly sources. It now only cites scholarly sources (with the exception of some journalistic sources that have more current and background information related to the scholarly research.)

I'm leaving the existing tags (OR, weasel words, etc.) for someone else to remove, as I obviously have a conflict of interest in that regard. --99.232.249.242 (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's Discuss
So since I rewrote the article and another user keeps reverting it, let's discuss the problems with the existing article. It relies too heavily on Donnelly and attributes way too many things not in the original research. Not to mention the amount of uncited research. So, I propose removing the following un-cited statements:


 * 1) Thus, bettering their own sexuality through accumulation of ever-greater "sexual experience" becomes difficult or even impossible -- This was confusing and so was removed. Sexuality is not a ratio value, it cannot be improved or compared. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Most incel people are not physically unattractive - Removed; cited material in the same sentence was kept. --99.232.249.242 (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Some researchers conclude that male incel people are more likely to binge drink as a substitute for sexual relations. [This is irrelevant; an article on fruit flies has nothing to do with human sexuality] I changed the wording to "some researchers suspect" and removed the irrelevancy tag. It's possible that fruit fly habits have relevance to human mating patterns but it hasn't been proven. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The prolonged lack of partnered sexual release can also make it more difficult for affected individuals to channel sexual energy into other pursuits. Meanwhile, internal consequences that can have external manifestations in an incel person tend to follow the standard sexual frustration pattern of tension, irritability, belligerence, trouble sleeping, mood swings, perpetual agitation, stress, and anxiety. The first half could probably be cited but at the moment isn't. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) The entire Reasons section of this article is uncited. In my rewrite I replaced it with ones drawn from Donnelly's Life Analysis (that were relevant and properly sourced.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.249.242 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I've changed the wording of the "Reasons" section to "Causes" (which reflects the standard terminology used on other mental health articles.) I suggest removing the line "Reduced physical ability to have sex as a result of an illness, injury or handicap, or because of difficulty in developing and maintaining an erection as a result of sexual problems such as erectile dysfunction or impotence." as the first half is uncited and the second-half ED --> low libido is irrelevant to incel. Incel refers to lack of opportunity, not lack of ability. --99.232.249.242 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Involvement in the Community
Are there any studies that analyze how often are incels involved in community functions, such as athletics? My guess is that they aren't involved that much. In my opinion, that could either be because of a lack of motivation or not wanting to risk reliving negative social experiences that they accrued. The second statement applies to me a lot :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.40.65 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any studies, but I would instinctively assume their participation in athletics would be impacted by either poor physical fitness or shyness (or both.) You may find information of use in studies on social anxiety or shyness. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Systemic Bias and Drive-by Tagging
People visit this page and make changes without mentioning them on the talk page. An IP user recently added a systemic bias tag to the page, stating that the article weighs too heavily on incel being a psychological or medical condition.

The problem with that tag is that there is nobody out there saying incel is not a medical or psychological condition, so there's no way to include the opposing view. So if drive-by-tagger has any resources to support his point of view, then he or she should come back and share them, but at the moment there's

Donnelly and Gilmartin (PhD in Sociology and Clinical Psychology respectively) on the pro-medical side and I couldn't tell you a researcher that's dismissed incel on the negative side.

I've removed the tag for now, if someone can provide convincing evidence (a single reliable source!) than by all means re-add the tag but I don't feel (and others can weigh in here, I don't own the page) that it belongs.

--99.245.191.227 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, I've moved tags that were at the very bottom of the page to the top. I don't know if the tags are still needed (the page seems very different since I last saw it), but they don't belong at the bottom if they are needed on the page 163.160.107.179 (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

My gut feeling is they no longer belong, but I'll leave them there until someone else removes them since I've gotten too attached to the page as is. --204.225.8.2 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) (99.245.191.227)

Mass Reversion
Inviting the user who reverted the page back several months and dozens of edits to come here to justify his decision. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through the diffs, I think the current version is a much better page, and looks to be getting rid of a fair few of the problems that have been tagged. I would also like to see justifications, something better than "PUAHATE"...163.160.107.179 (talk) 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.involuntarycelibacy.com
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 18:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)