Talk:incel

Do incels only want sex? Or do they also want romantic relationships?

My edit was reverted by @Metaknowledge:.

Previously, the definition said that incels just want sex.

In my edit, I changed it to "romantic relationships or sex".

I hope we can start a peaceful discussion, and use reliable methods to find out what incels want. So Metaknowledge, which method did you use to reliably conclude that incels just want sex, and not also a romantic relationship? Amin (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree the current definition is an inadequate definition of the modern sense, though not even broadening it from "sex" to "relationships" fixes that, since only a subset of people who would like to be in relationships or having sex are incels: many people are just sexually frustrated, unhappily single, etc, and not incels.

To the extent the original Canadian sense is attested, we might need separate senses for it and the modern sense, as Jberkel seems to have suggested. The citations of "incel ideology" get at some of what may need to be added to the definition: that they are members of a subculture (not unconnected people who happen to share a characteristic; they have forums, etc) and "characterized by resentment, [...] misogyny, [...] a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence" (as WP puts it).

Btw, at this point the label needs to be changed to "originally [in the] seduction community", or dropped, because the word is now used by general news media, etc.

- -sche (discuss) 04:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"A member of a mostly online [and often misogynistic] subculture of people who [are / defined themselves as] unable to find a [romantic or] sexual partner despite desiring one." ? - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Race in definition

Is "mostly white men" really appropriate in a definition? One could say the same thing in a definition of "CEO" or "president". Equinox ◑ 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

i don't think that characterization applies to CEO or president nowadays as much as it does to this term -- plus this looks like more of an identitarian ideology than the idea of being a president or CEO. i'm not sure if the "typically" characterization is true but if it is, it's important to the definition, given how we define other sex-related terms. --Habst (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone removed this just now, and while there are problems with their stated reasoning (surveys of internet forum users self-reporting their race, especially users who show other troll-ish tendencies, are not reliable, as has been pointed out on Wikipedia when this has been discussed in more detail and compared to other sources' assessment of their race), I'm not convinced whiteness is definitional enough to bother re-inserting. - -sche (discuss) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Potential slight change in definition

I think that maybe definition 1 for the English noun should be given the label "informal", definition 2 for the English noun should have the label "rare" removed, and the order of the aforementioned definitions should be switched. 205.189.94.8 19:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Colloquial meaning has all but superseded the original meaning.

People use this word as a synonym for "misogynist" now and it should be the #1 definition with the original "involuntary celibacy" definition being secondary. 74.84.93.202 13:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)