Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious Debunking Incel "Violence"



Disciple Of Saint Hamudi
Apr 8, 2022
This post is inspired by one I saw in the "Must-Read" subforum, one that debunked the claims Redditors made about incels "committing violence". I feel that I wanted to add onto that because there are a lot of "researchers" who claim that incels commit violence.

When they say "violence", what are these people referring to? Taking one look at any one of these popular "scholarly" articles, you can see that they almost always reference the acts committed by Elliot Rodger, Alek Minassian, or Jake Davison. In the rarer case that they do not, they are always intentionally vague when referencing "incel violence" so as not to appear responsible for biased or malicious reporting, because as we have seen time and time again, many of the claims made about so-called incel violence have been retracted or outright denied by legal authorities.

Reading any one of these, it is clear that the authors and researchers behind this have a VERY liberal interpretation of the word "violence". Let's take a look to see what "violence" actually means.

According to the highly accredited Cornell Law School, which is usually fairly well respected among academics, the definition of the word is that:

"The term “crime of violence” means—
(a)an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b)any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense."

Certainly, the first definition does accurately describe the acts committed by those such as Rodger, Minassian, Davison, and some others, but many of these articles (like the ones found on JSTOR) use the term much more broadly. As in, simply saying something on a forum that is even remotely considered mysoginistic (from the often subjective and biased vewpoint of a "researcher") is considered "incel violence". What a ridiculous notion, especially considering that the legal definition of violence, at least in countries that practice English Common Law (most of the USA and Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc) is quite markedly different than what these sources propose the definition is.

Of course, it does say that violence counts as something that is a "substantial risk", however given that it also says the act of substantial risk must be a felony, this does not undermine my point.
Given the generous gift of freedom of speech (or some version of it) that we enjoy in many countries, it should be considered a falsehood to attribute the term violence, at least in the legal or scholarly aspect, to much or almost all of what is said on this site or on similar forums. Thus it is not a far fetched claim to propose that much of what is said in these articles about inceldom, criticising us, is often baseless and even more so, sensationalist, in nature.

So it would be prudent and accurate to claim that even if there are some very outlandish and rude things said on this site, it is wrong to claim that they are "violent" in nature, at least in the legal sense of the word. And it would also be inaccurate to say that such words or phrases said on sites like this cause or incite violence as well.

It is also quite inaccurate to claim incels as a larger group, or even as a fringe movement. Although there are a few small incel movement groups (such as the IPF/ILM), no actual court defined felonies or even misdemeanours can be attributed to them. Even describing this forum as a larger group or movement would be inaccurate at best and disingenuous at worst, because describing a forum site as some united and unified movement is hardly a claim with any substantial evidence. It would be like trying to call the entire user base of Twitter or Reddit a "movement". Even if they have the fact that they use the site in common, there is little else that unites them. On sites like Incels.is there is more that unites us (like the fact that we are all incels) but hardly enough to back up a claim that we are some unified movement that is attempting to raise awareness, much less commit acts of so called terrorism. Some of us can barely even agree on certain blackpill topics.

Even then, most incels aren't even associated with this site or any incel site. While many sources have abused the term "incel" the original definition never changed. It still means "involuntary celibate" and by that definition alone (it is the only one that matters) there are MILLIONS of involuntarily celibate (sexless) men. Many are in India or China and have never even heard of the term incel or this forum. Over 55% of all men in China are single, and given the high incentives by the Chinese government to have children (such as removing restrictions like the one child policy), it is likely that much of this singleness is not out of a voluntary choice. They might not even understand a word of English (the primary language of this forum). Yet if you asked them about their struggles they would be strikingly similar to the ones we describe here on this site. Countless articles have been made on the epidemic of sexless and relationship-less men in countries across the world, in China, India, among other countries.

And yet there is a clear and present LACK of violent acts committed by these men. If we were statistically treat them separately from sex or relationship having men (which we should), incels would have some of the least significant rates of violence in the world.

According to Statistics Canada:
"In 2022, there were 129,876 victims of police-reported family violence and 117,093 victims of intimate partner violence aged 12 years and older. Overall rates of police-reported family violence (337 victims per 100,000 population) and intimate partner violence (346) were similar. The rate of family violence was more than two times higher among women and girls (455) than among men and boys (215). Meanwhile, the rate of intimate partner violence was more than three times higher among women and girls (537) than among men and boys (151)."

Wow, that is a whole lot of violence against women. None of which, mind you, was committed by incels. Why? Because incels, by definition, don't have relationships and don't have families of their own. It wouldn't be possible for an incel to even commit domestic violence against a woman unless it was against his own mother or sister. In fact, according to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, more than 15 percent of ALL violent crime (not just domestic violence) is intimate partner based. Again, that is a LOT of violence committed by people who aren't incels. Yet, when people claim mysoginistic violence against us, we are lumped into statistics like these when they say that men are violent towards women.

We should not be included in that larger group of men if they were going to be genuine in their research and intent, but we all know they won't. Of course, due to inherent bias and looksim, these "researcher" and "scholars" only want to treat incels as a separate group when they think they can turn it into a movement of terrorism or attribute specific acts of mass violence to it. Otherwise they lump us in with all the sex and relationship having men, so as to make us look worse. This is typical of the hypocritic rhetoric spewed by mainstream researchers, such as those who love to pretend there is a spectrum of genders instead of just two, but then suddenly only recognize two genders when it comes to violence against women. They downplay what they don't want the public to see, and overemphasised and exaggerate everything that fits their biased narrative.
Last edited:
Most people forget sex-havers commit the most amount of violence, and they get more sex as a result.
They downplay what they don't want the public to see, and overemphasised and exaggerate everything that fits their biased narrative.
Everything wrong with the media summed up in one sentence
dude pretty much all inmates are havers. this is ideological crap
Edmunk Kemper will be missed. He was a real one (autist)

Similar threads


Users who are viewing this thread