Original Research

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

1­–28
An Exploration of the © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Involuntary Celibate sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260520959625
https://doi.org/
(Incel) Subculture Online journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Roberta Liggett O’Malley,1 Karen Holt,1 and

Thomas J. Holt1

Abstract
Incels, a portmanteau of the term involuntary celibates, operate in online
communities to discuss difficulties in attaining sexual relationships.
Past reports have found that multiple elements of the incel culture are
misogynistic and favorable towards violence. Further, several violent
incidents have been linked to this community, which suggests that incel
communities may resemble other ideologically motivated extremist groups.
The current study employed an inductive qualitative analysis of over 8,000
posts made in two online incel communities to identify the norms, values,
and beliefs of these groups from a subcultural perspective. Analyses found
that the incel community was structured around five interrelated normative
orders: the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity,
male oppression, and violence. The implications of this analysis for our
understanding of extremism and the role of the internet in radicalization to
violence are considered in depth.

Keywords
extremism, masculinity, violence, technology, subculture

1Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States

Corresponding Author:
Roberta Liggett O’Malley, School of Criminal Justice, Baker Hall, 655 Auditorium Road, Room
560, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States.
Email: liggettr@msu.edu
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Introduction
Over the last two decades, research examining ideologically motivated violence
driven by various cultural, political, religious, or nationalist beliefs has increased
dramatically (e.g., LaFree & Freilich, 2016; Silke, 2008). These studies demon-
strate a range of foreground and situational factors that compel individuals to
engage in acts of violence (Freilich, Adamczyk, et al., 2015; Freilich, Chermak,
et al., 2015; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; LaFree & Bersani, 2014; Parkin & Freilich,
2015; Smith & Damphousse, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated the
importance of an individual’s exposure to ideological belief systems largely as a
function of social relationships to others (Bartlett & Miller, 2012; Borum, 2011a,
2011b; Hegghammer, 2013; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Although many studies
emphasize the importance of intimate peers and family associations who intro-
duce ideological beliefs to an actor (McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011; Simi &
Futrell, 2010), the internet and technology may also provide access to extremist
ideologies (Holt et al., 2019; Weimann, 2011). Evidence suggests that social
media and websites provide individuals with access to social networks that may
espouse radical beliefs that are not present in their off-line relational ties
(Freilich, Chermak, et al., 2015; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019;
Weimann, 2011). Additionally, the internet serves as a resource for information
to engage in violent actions off-line, as noted in the 2013 Boston Marathon
Bombing where the attackers utilized bomb-making designs obtained from
online sources (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019).
In many respects, the belief systems of extremist groups are similar to devi-
ant subcultures in that they form as a reaction to or rejection of societal norms
(Holt et al., 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2011; Simi & Futrell, 2010).
Individuals who become a part of these movements also learn verbal and non-
verbal cues that signal their membership and provide status cues to denote
position within the community (Holt et al., 2016; Simi & Futrell, 2010).
Additionally, the rise of the internet also provided a common point of entry to
movements that were otherwise fragmented and dependent upon geographic
or interpersonal connections to join (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Weimann, 2011).
To date, the majority of research on extremist or ideologically motivated
violence focuses on those who primarily target minority and religious groups
in the context of radical far-right groups, and Western populations more gen-
erally among jihadi actors (Borum, 2011a; LaFree & Freilich, 2016; Silke,
2008). There is less research considering the ways that ideological groups
target individuals on the basis of gender. There is growing evidence of sub-
cultures that directly target women based on their perceived role in marginal-
izing and subjugating males in modern society (Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell &
Dutton, 2016). These groups emerged in part from online forums and
O’Malley et al. 3

communities that promote anti-feminist beliefs and the need for protection of
men’s rights, particularly in the context of divorce and parenting decisions
(Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell & Dutton, 2016).
In the last few years, a subset of this movement emerged called Incels, a
portmanteau of the term involuntary celibates, who operate in online com-
munities to discuss difficulties in seeking and succeeding in sexual relation-
ships. The term involuntary reflects a perceived lack of agency in one’s
current sexual inactivity, which causes them to experience significant per-
sonal distress (Donnelly et al., 2001). Individuals who perceive themselves to
be in this situation may become embroiled in online discussion communities
focused on their predicament and attempts to find meaning in their alienation
from dating culture (Tolentino, 2018; van Valkenburgh, 2018).
Members of online incel groups engage in rhetoric that may reflect norma-
tive anxieties among young men transitioning into adulthood. Prior assess-
ments of incels suggest they focus on sexlessness among males between the
ages of 18–25 (Tolentino, 2018). More broadly, young males between the
ages of 18–29 are more likely to use forum-based social media, such as
Reddit, where incel discussions are most often reported (Duggen & Smith,
2013). These demographics cover emerging adulthood and early adulthood
periods, which are characterized by exploration in work, love, and world-
views (Arnett, 2000; Levinson, 1986). Emerging adulthood, in particular, is
situated between adolescence and adulthood and is relatively free from the
constraints of adult social responsibilities, including consistent employment,
marriage, and parenting (Arnett, 2000; Neugarten et al., 1968).
As a result, it is normal for young adults to engage in both committed and
sporadic romantic relationships (Shulman & Connolly, 2013). Emerging
adulthood is also a time in which individuals are faced with more age-spe-
cific tasks and life decisions than any other developmental period (Caspi,
2002). Since most young adults profess an interest in future marriage (Carroll
et al., 2007), decision-making that integrates romantic relationships with
other social responsibilities and desires, such as employment, is a critical
preoccupation for young people (Collins, 2003; Shulman & Connolly, 2013).
Thus, to be frustrated and anxious about romantic relationships may be devel-
opmentally appropriate for young people.
While emerging concerns over the social responsibilities of adulthood
may be normative, rhetoric indicating a willingness to act on their negative
emotional states with violence against those who may affect their celibate
status is unusual and alarming (Baele et al., 2019; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; van
Valkenburgh, 2018). Research and news reports have found that multiple ele-
ments of the incel culture are highly misogynistic and favorable toward vio-
lence against women, indicating that this subculture may be at risk for future
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

violence (Baele et al., 2019; Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Tolentino, 2018). In
fact, there have been several instances of real-world violence performed by
incels (Baele et al., 2019; BBC, 2018a; Conti, 2018; Tolentino, 2018), most
notably Elliot Rodger who killed seven people in Santa Barbara, California in
2018 (BBC, 2018b). He engaged in multiple online incel communities and
wrote a manifesto highlighting the need to seek revenge on women and mas-
culine men who rejected him and made it difficult for him to seek out sexual
relationships (BBC, 2018b).
The risk of violence stemming from incel communities and their online
operational practices suggests they may resemble other ideologically moti-
vated extremist groups. There is, however, a dearth of research considering
the ideological beliefs of incels or the ways they express these sentiments in
online spaces. Such insights are needed to improve our understanding of
incels generally and their similarities to other extremist groups to identify
strategies to counter their beliefs and de-escalate the risk of violence. The
current study employed an inductive qualitative analysis of over 8,000 posts
made in two online incel communities to identify the norms, values, and
beliefs of these groups from a subcultural perspective. The implications of
this analysis for our understanding of extremism and the role of the internet
in radicalization to violence are considered in depth.

Assessing Subcultural Values and Their Relationship to Extremist

Belief Systems
The advent of online discussion communities and social media enables indi-
viduals to come together and express their beliefs and feelings about myriad
forms of behavior (Ging, 2019; Holt, 2007; Holt et al., 2016). The shared
online spaces enable individuals to create a sense of community that may be
absent in their real-world interactions with others (Holt et al., 2016; Maratea,
2011; Simi & Futrell, 2010). In turn, these communities can foster the forma-
tion of subcultures, whereby individuals develop a shared value system that
can justify various deviant or criminal activities (Holt, 2007; Maratea, 2011;
Miller, 1958).
Subcultures typically operate in opposition to the dominant culture, or as
a rejection of its values (Maurer, 1974; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Wolfgang &
Ferracuti, 1967; Young, 2011). Subcultural perspectives contend that indi-
viduals identify one another and develop a shared set of beliefs and values
through conflict over scarce resources, such as employment, financial secu-
rity, prestige, and power (Cohen & Short, 1958; Miller, 1958). Researchers
also note that subcultures may also form around a common role or value, as
O’Malley et al. 5

in occupations like policing (Herbert, 1998; Muir, 1977; Skolnick, 1966).

Other subcultures have developed as a strategy to find connection in the face
of social stigma and deviant labeling (Braithwaite, 1989), as noted with pedo-
philes (e.g., Holt et al., 2010; Jenkins, 2001), and the customers of prostitutes
(Blevins & Holt, 2009). Others, like Swidler (1986), argue that subcultures
form in competition with other cultural views, such as those of the dominant
culture, are considered “unsettled” (p. 278). Members of unsettled cultures
(i.e., subculture or countercultures) generally display greater coherence and
commitment to an overarching ideology, which is used to inform new strate-
gies of action (Swidler, 1986).
Applied to deviant behavior, subcultural members become inculcated into
deviant norms, attitudes, and values that free them from traditional social
constraints on their behavior (Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958). As a result, subcul-
tural participants structure their behaviors in ways that demonstrate their
belief in a shared set of values (Cohen, 1955; Herbert, 1998; Holt, 2007). In
addition, subculture participants utilize a unique language, or argot, to dem-
onstrate their attachment to the subculture and identify those who exist out-
side of its bounds (Hamm, 2002; Holt, 2010; Maurer, 1974).
Research on violent extremists and terror groups illustrates that members
frequently operate within online spaces that resemble traditional criminal or
delinquent subcultures (e.g., Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Simi & Futrell, 2010).
The beliefs expressed by participants in forums and social media encourage
the use of violence in furtherance of their ideological cause, whether politi-
cal, religious, or racial in nature (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2016;
Simi & Futrell, 2010). The perceived safety of online spaces also allows indi-
viduals to express ideas they may not share in public due to fear of social
rejection or a lack of shared values in their physical peer networks (Holt et
al., 2016; McCauley & Moskalenko, 2008; Simi & Futrell, 2010). In addi-
tion, individuals need not directly engage with others in direct communica-
tions to come to accept radical beliefs. They need only review posted content
to find a sense of belonging and eventually accept such views (Hamm &
Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2019).
Membership in such online communities may represent an important first
step towards indoctrination and acceptance of extremist and terrorist ideolo-
gies. Moghaddam (2005) uses the metaphor of a staircase to explain how
individuals increasingly become engaged with terrorist groups. Climbing the
staircase begins with individuals’ perceptions of injustice and a desire to
improve their situation (Moghaddam, 2005). Those who react to perceived
injustices with anger and frustration may be more likely to engage with, or be
recruited by, extremist organizations. For instance, individuals involved with
white nationalists and white power movements broadly discuss their
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

experience of a racial awakening that makes them aware of differences in

how they are treated relative to racial minorities (Simi & Futrell, 2010).
Similarly, jihadi movements often emphasize the negative perceptions of the
Islamic faith portrayed by Western nations’ media and politics as a source of
anger that compels individuals toward radical clerics who espouse jihad
(Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt et al., 2018). Individuals then learn to displace
their aggression toward a common enemy, whether racial minorities, reli-
gions, or entire nations (Simi & Futrell, 2010). Those who begin to accept
such beliefs and espouse their importance become increasingly become
embedded in the group, and may gain ties to more central players within
movements (Moghaddam, 2005).

Assessing the State of Knowledge of Incel Values and Violence

Since subcultural values guide new strategies for action (Swidler, 1986),
individuals tied to movements that are oriented towards violence may be
more likely to engage in such actions in support of their beliefs (Khalil et al.,
2019). To understand and mitigate such behavior, we must understand the
value systems that impact and guide subcultural members’ behavior (Miller,
1958). This has particular value when discussing incels, who have formed
online communities as a means to find community in their perceived isola-
tion. In the past, celibacy research typically focused on individuals who vol-
untarily, or willingly abstained from sexual activity (Donnelly et al., 2001).
Although it is normal for individuals to go through periods of sexual inactiv-
ity, particularly as they age (Laumann et al., 1994), incels are those who have
been without sexual activity for at least six months despite their desire to be
in a sexual relationship. The lack of sex causes some to report significant
psychological distress such as depression and loneliness (Burgess et al.,
2001; Donnelly, 1993).
One of the earliest investigations of incels was conducted through open-
ended surveys of 300 men and women recruited through the internet
(Donnelly et al., 2001). These men and women shared similar frustrations
regarding their inability to enter sexual relationships. The men sampled in
this study described masculine norms and dating double standards as major
barriers in finding sexual partners. For example, men were likely to state that
adhering to traditional masculinity norms, such as working long hours and
feeling pressure to perform, prevented them from finding mates. In addition,
the double standards of having to make the first move when approaching
females were viewed as unfair and prohibiting them from access (Donnelly et
al., 2001).
O’Malley et al. 7

Involuntarily celibates were considered a difficult-to-reach population

among researchers, mostly due to self-stigma and their inability to form com-
munity around the issue (Burgess et al., 2001). The growth of online spaces
enabled incel groups to form, particularly in the mid-2000s in the broader
milieu of communities characterized by an anti-feminist and anti-female
framework. Some refer to this as the online manosphere, a loose-confederacy
of online groups connected by an interest in male-rights and anti-feminism
(Ging, 2019; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; Ironwood, 2013). Within the mano-
sphere, several online groups exist to discuss difficulties with females, such
as revenge pornography communities, men’s rights groups, father’s rights
groups, and groups that encourage violence against women (Crisafi et al.,
2016; Salter & Crofts, 2015).
Participants in these communities prescribe to a “red-pill” philosophy
whose premise originates from the popular film The Matrix, in which the
main character is offered the choice to take a blue-pill and continue to live in
a constructed, comfortable delusion or take the red pill and discover the truth
of how the world works. To be red-pilled is to come to the realization that we
all live under a feminist, far-left constructed delusion and need to take steps
to revolt against it (Ging, 2019; Nagle, 2017; van Valkenburgh, 2018). Social
media and the internet have played key roles in the formation of the mano-
sphere, and specifically, the incel community which has mobilized and
reclaimed the incel term of the past.
Masculine identity may therefore be an important source of strain guiding
the formation of anti-women subcultures online. Whereas womanhood is
viewed as the function of permanent biological maturity (i.e., puberty), man-
hood is perceived as transient, earned, and the collection of highly specific
traits, behaviors, and responsibilities (Vandello et al., 2008). As a result, man-
hood is seen as a precarious social status that is both hard-won, easily lost, and
often under threat (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Men who experience social
threats to masculine identity or power are more likely to engage in behavior
that reestablishes their power over women, such as promoting ideologies that
subordinate women (Dahl et al., 2015; Weaver & Vescio, 2015) or behaving
aggressively (Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Thus, acceptance of traditional mas-
culine identities may increase perceptions of gender-power threat.
Both empirical studies and the news media have criticized online incel
communities for their extreme views, particularly their anti-feminist and anti-
women rhetoric (Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Kini, 2017; Nagle, 2017;
Tolentino, 2018). Yet there is a dearth of empirical research that investigates
incel communities through a subcultural and ideological lens. Such analysis
is necessary to better understand the dynamics of incel communities and the
ways their norms and values situationally justify violence toward various
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

groups in society. In turn, we may be able to identify prevention strategies to

challenge the beliefs held by its participants and decrease the risk of lethal
violence from those who accept an incel identity (refer also to Holt et al.,
2017; Simi & Futrell, 2010).

Data and Methods

To examine the incel subculture online, this qualitative study used existing
data from two active web forums created by and for the incel community.
Forums are online communities composed of sub-forums that focus on spe-
cific areas of interest to participants (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998).
They allow individuals to create ongoing discussions through threads, which
begin when an individual posts a comment or question to the broader user
population. The responses to that post are then threaded together in sequential
order to create an ongoing, natural conversation similar to what is observed
in real-world spaces (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998).
Both forums in this sample were identified by searching key terms
related to “incels” and “incels” into Google search engine. All posts were
publicly accessible, meaning the site did not require the user to subscribe or
create a username to view the posts (Holt, 2007; Mann & Sutton, 1998).
One forum existed on a large social networking site composed of several
sub-forums. The second forum operated as an independent website created
expressly for incels.
For this study, 8,324 posts made by 703 unique users were analyzed across
452 threads from two different forums. The 452 threads were identified based
on chronology, meaning that the most recent threads were used in this analy-
sis, such that posts from the summer of 2018 until January 2019 were selected
for analysis. Threads were excluded from analysis if they included un-
responded to queries for research or un-responded to posts identified by a
forum moderator as trolling. For example, some outsiders from the commu-
nity would post rants onto the incel forum advising incels to change their
attitude or to criticize their belief system. If these posts were identified as
trolling, and left un-responded to by other community members, they were
excluded from analysis. Only the narratives of those who directly indicated
through their own posting behaviors that they were a member of the incel
community were included. As such, rants by outsiders based on assumptions
of the community were not included. The only exception to this was in cases
where trolling posts generated responses from other incel members validat-
ing and describing their own belief system. In these cases, the thread was
included for analysis.
O’Malley et al. 9

Qualitative Analysis
Features of this subculture were measured using the concept of normative
orders, which are an analytic concept that describes “a set of rules and prac-
tices centered around a primary value” (Herbert, 1998, p. 348). Subcultures
are comprised of both formal (e.g., structural, bureaucratic, or legal) and
informal (e.g., values, perspectives, and identity) elements that structure and
guide social responses to situations. The normative order approach was thus
developed to combine formal and informal elements (i.e., link rules and prac-
tices with values) and treat them as equally important within analyses
(Herbert, 1998). Thus, normative orders constitute a specific type of theme
emerging from grounded qualitative methods. Specifically, normative orders
acknowledge the cognitive aspect of behavior, how thoughts and beliefs can
dictate action, and demonstrate that rules and norms derive their meaning
from the value they uphold (Herbert, 1998). Researchers have used this frame
to assess subcultures operating in off-line (Herbert, 1998) and online spaces
(Holt, 2007; Holt et al., 2010).
Inductive qualitative methodology was used to assess the normative orders
operating within the incel subculture online. The identified threads were
archived, and each post was analyzed using a grounded theory approach with
three waves of inductive methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). First, open
coding was performed by hand to analyze key repeating themes emerging
from the data. A repeating theme was identified if two or more individual
posters describe the same idea, action, rule, or belief (Auerbach & Silverstein,
2003). For example, key themes concerning attractiveness, short guy,
resources were initially identified within the data when multiple forum par-
ticipants discussed a perception of what females desired in a sexual partner.
Preliminary codes were organized into a master file tagged with the relevant
quotations of each theme.
A second wave of axial coding was performed to re-order preliminary codes
(Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; Saldana, 2009). Each preliminary code and
tagged relevant text were re-read and re-organized based on higher-level con-
cepts concerning incel norms and beliefs. For example, the original open-codes
attractiveness, short guy, resources were re-configured into the higher-order
code attractiveness. Lastly, these higher-level codes were similarly re-read, re-
ordered, and re-analyzed in order to refine and create final, broad conceptual
categories that reflect the normative orders of the incel subculture.
The relationships between each of these orders were explored using quotes
from the posters in their own words, where appropriate. The usernames of the
individuals quoted were replaced with pseudonyms reflective of the broader
naming conventions of the forums to provide a modicum of privacy for the
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

users in keeping with basic ethical guidelines for the presentation of qualita-
tive data derived from online sources (Holt & Bossler, 2015; Hutchings &
Holt, 2015; Silverman, 2013).

Findings
A grounded theory approach was used to critically explore the norms, values,
and beliefs present in an online incel community online. This analysis found that
the incel community was structured around five interrelated normative orders.
The first four reflect participants’ views on the sexual market, women as natu-
rally evil, ways to legitimize masculinity, and male oppression. These normative
orders connect to a broader fifth norm: the validation and justification of vio-
lence, especially against women. Congruent with a normative order approach,
the espoused values, norms, and structure of relationships between participants
were reflexively related to one another and inform social behavior.
Since the incel community has exhibited itself as a group capable and will-
ing to engage in violent behavior, understanding how these normative orders
imbue meaning into violence is critical for intervention. The norms of the
sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, and male
oppression justify a world view in which evolutionary reproductive pressures
combine with gendered socialization to produce an environment in which
males are oppressed and women are illegitimately powerful in society. This
deep-seated sense of injustice is reminiscent of Moghaddam’s (2005) stair-
case towards increasingly extremist behavior. Due to the illegitimacy of
women and society, violence against them both is advocated and reinforced
as acceptable, courageous, and humorous.

The Sexual Market

As a group primarily concerned with accessing sexual relationships, incels’
discussions focused on making sense of socialized dating activities. The
foundation for the incel populations’ conception of sexual activity is that of a
female-led marketplace operating under the laws of natural selection. Women
reside in a place of sexual privilege in the sexual marketplace, as females act
as the sexual gatekeeper by deciding who they reject and with whom they
have intercourse. Thus, a female-dominant sexual market is cited as the most
powerful barrier to sex among incels:

I heard a friend of mine say once that women have all the power.… A female
coworker of mine also said to me once, she (and all other women) are sitting on
a pot of gold between their legs. Can’t remember the context, but it was the fact
O’Malley et al. 11

that women are born with the power to hand out the prize of the only real goal
that exists. All other goals are essentially set to put us in better position for sex.
I wonder if women are generally happier than men? Is this why men are more
violent? I’d assume so. Because most men don’t get what they want, and all
women have what men want (Isolcel)

Incels promote the salience of an unjust female-led market on the basis that
women have the most power in sexual markets, and society in general. Since
they have agency to choose their sexual partners, they can negatively impact
less attractive or desirable males. As insidecel put is, “you have to be the top
.000001% for a woman to even look at you.” Therefore, males are forced to
become incels due to their rejection by women rather than through voluntary
choice.
Consistent with the natural selection framework, incels believe that the
most important human goal is to attain a mate and reproduce. This was exem-
plified in a post stating: “Since the purpose of humans is to reproduce, there’s
no reason for me to exist if I can’t even find a mate to do that.” Incels are both
preoccupied with competition for sexual partners that they construct as sex-
ual privilege. From this perspective, one’s place within the sexual market
appears to be hierarchical and is entirely dependent on what incels call sexual
market value (SMV). An individual’s SMV is comprised of physical attrac-
tiveness and money. As caritacel says, “it’s social programming. Women like
good looking guys.” Women only select mates with superior genetics, evi-
denced by physical attractiveness, a product of one’s genetics and resources.
Incels make meaning out of their inability to have sex by blaming their
own physical appearance. Importance is placed on the physical attractiveness
of an individual’s face, height, and having an athletic body. Incels therefore
use self-degrading terms such as “ugly,” “monsterous,” or “manlet” to give
scathing appraisals of their own looks. For example, a poster wrote:

I’m fat, ugly, poor … degenerate, manlet, got mental problems, skin disease,
bad breathe, bad teeth, and so on. I’m not good enough for stacy let alone any
woman, I barely deserve to be on this earth, I’m a failure. I’ve accepted my
fate, and am done with coping.

Some incels will share pictures of themselves through private messages to

other members in order to affirm their belonging within the community.
Indeed, some members are accused of being “fakecels,” or fake incels, as
they could have dating success if they tried hard enough. On the other hand,
“trucels,” or true incels, are the most alienated from sex because of their per-
ceived ugliness and inability to conform to strict masculine beauty norms
pushed by women. As lordcel comments, “chads can never be incel, the
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

difference between truecels and incels are truecels cannot get laid even if they
have a nice house and car.” Self-disclosure of ugliness affirms an incel’s
belonging to the incel community, and the purpose of sharing images with
other members is for them to affirm the user’s perceived ugliness rather than
offer assurance or compliments.
Although engaging in self-loathing, self-degrading behavior may lead to a
sense of depression, apathy, and hopelessness in some users, it also had a role
in uniting forum users. Discussions on physical attractiveness supported and
reaffirmed their shared belief in a superficial sexual market and common
disdain for attractive men (“chads”) and women (“stacys”). In addition, both
the disdain felt for beautiful men and women as well as self-loathing may
result from adhering to a value in which physical attractiveness, a concept
seen as genetic and therefore unchangeable, is critical for romantic attain-
ment. It should be noted that self-hatred is not an essential part of being a
“trucel,” but incel preoccupation with and commitment to the SMV may lead
to depression in this group in general.
Resources are another important currency in the sexual market. As Maincel
posts: “The second-best thing apart from looks is status.” Under the frame-
work of resources, incels discuss other elements of their disadvantage in
terms of employment. Some incels claim that employment success is equally
dictated by attractiveness and social skills, which incels generally lack. Incels
also complain that female standards are not only high when it comes to physi-
cal appearance, but also regarding money and wealth. The overwhelming
sense of a female-centered demand for “perfect” men creates a sense of com-
petition for romantic partners, as noted in this post:

To really have a chance at love, sex and relationship, you need to have all these
costly things, as well as interests, friends, a social network, access to television,
current events, the internet, hobbies, things to talk about, confidence, and if not
a job at least a future w financial stability.

The normative order of the sexual market serves two important functions.
First, it demarcates the social boundaries between incels and others in terms
of entry into and performance within the sexual market. This forms the pri-
mary identity of incels as those who are unable to access sexual relationships
no matter their efforts due to a rigid social structure that emphasizes certain
traits and favors attractive and successful males. Second, it legitimizes all
other normative orders related to women, male oppression, masculinity, and
violence. In turn, incels frame themselves as a marginalized and an oppressed
group in a society in which they have little to no value.
O’Malley et al. 13

Women as Naturally Evil

Central to the incel belief system is the normative order of women’s inherent
evil. Within incel users’ personal narratives, many discussed feeling bullied and
humiliated by women, which was framed as a source of trauma. To make mean-
ing of these experiences, one of the core beliefs of incels is that females are
inherently cruel. Consistent with the natural selection framework, female evil-
ness is seen as a caustic combination of evolution, biology, and culture. There
were myriad comments to this effect, for example, this post from f1recel:
“Women use lies to manipulate men into doing what they want. It’s nothing
except how nature has designed them.” Similarly, bladecel stated: “What makes
female Evil that’s easily answerable.… Culture and biology … combine female
bio which is already horrible in its own right with a cultural that gives them
power and control and you lead to corruption there a reason most men lead.”
Within this perceived framework, women are evolutionarily compelled to
manipulate men to attain important resources for survival as a species. Women
are also considered to be “less evolved” than men in their animalistic drives
towards reproduction and safety. As anoncel stated, “Female brain is very
childlike.” Much of incel communications are focused on the construction of
women as inherently manipulative, dishonest, narcissistic, and villainous.
Incels also re-interpret women’s behavior in ways that supports their views of
natural evil. One incel, SunDudeCel, wrote about his hatred for his room-
mate’s new girlfriend, stating: “That’s the thing, she’s never directly said any-
thing to me. She just looks at me so smug and like she owns the world because
she gets her choice of men and I get no one.” Another incel, Isolcel responded:

She’s definitely paying attention to you. She prefers to be there and wants to
live there, but she doesn’t have the right to, and the only person who can and
would protest her being there is you.… She gives you attitude/a negative vibe
to make you feel small, make you feel like the outsider who doesn’t belong, so
you either move out or keep quiet.

The normative order of women as naturally evil is consistent with past

research into the incel community, which found that sexism is a key compo-
nent of their ideology (Ging, 2019). Incels draw from perspectives such as
evolutionary psychology and natural selection to validate their perception
that women compelled by the desire for reproduction and are narcissistic and
cruel in pursuit of these goals. In addition, incels use bio-deterministic lan-
guage to advocate for the natural differences between men and women that
affirm a society in which males should have more power over women. Incels
frame feminists, or those who continue to advocate for what they believe is
an unnatural and unwarranted advancement of female equality, as an enemy.
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Frustration stems from this combination of female inferiority, their illegiti-

mate power in modern society, and their hypocritical claims of oppression.
These beliefs fuel the anger and hatred of the incel members while justifying
their argument that they are the truly oppressed group.

Legitimizing Masculinity
Another important normative order organizing the incel social structure is the
idea of legitimizing common masculine norms. Incels justify unequal gender
relations through gendered-power dynamics within sexual attraction. For
instance, incels normalize male aggression and male sexualization of females
since they argue that women desire to be sexualized, and males are pro-
grammed to sexualize. As once incel states, “Also, its [re]tarded we are
shamed at lusting for chicks who objectify and sexualize their own bodies.”
Interestingly, incels also have discussions concerning age and sexual
attraction. Employing concepts from evolutionary biology and psychology,
incels claimed that aging women are inferior to young women and glorified
the idea of “young love.” This theme has been previously investigated by
Klee (2018), who noted that incels have a strong sense of missing out on teen-
age love. As the user Sniffcel stated: “Missing out on teen love is ragefuel in
pure form.” An obsession with young love comes from a biological sense of
physical attraction. Incels repeatedly discussed that minor women, whom
they described as jail baits, or JBs, were the most attractive, reinforcing an
attraction to minor girls as being “biologically normal” and “appropriate.”
For instance, Babicel wrote: “Real 10/10 stacy is no more older than 13.
Maybe 14.” Similarly, the user ragecel stated:

How society and feminism have redefined normal healthy men as “Pedophiles”
∑ That it has been normal throughout human history for men to be sexually
active with girls from puberty and up.
∑ That it is normal for all animals to do this as well.
∑ What possible harm it causes men to tell them they are all “pathological”
just for feeling normal arousal they are biologically programmed to
experience.

This preference for younger girls was accompanied by a distinct distaste for
older women, usually defined as mid-20s and older, because they are “less
fertile.” These subcultural norms and distortions based on claims of evolu-
tionary biology underlie the argument that many incels espouse, which is that
the age of consent is an unreasonable social construction, another way in
which they are oppressed by women.
O’Malley et al. 15

Incels believe that modern society has created a world in which both men
and women are suppressed from natural roles and identities. They expressed
nostalgia for a more patriarchal past, one which is constructed as more
aligned with the “natural,” biological differences between men and women.
This belief was evident in one incel’s post:

I think that the patriarchal family used to be the ultimate socially designed cope
that would prevent a man from losing hope in his life. From his childhood he’d
be brainwashed into thinking that he will have a household to run, a lifelong
mate to protect and to get validation from and his kids to raise. For this purpose
a man was supposed to work hard and achieve his goals and many men did that.
What we see now is seemingly the result of dismantling the construct of family
and its replacement for a legal form of male enslavement to provide for
genetically superior men’s leftovers.

At the same time, incels legitimized masculinity by delegitimizing females.

For instance, some used the term female humanoid or “foid” to refer to
women in conversation. Many users also discussed the ways in which
women are inferior to men, usually by pointing to their intellectual inferior-
ity and absurdity. For instance, Emergencel stated: “Foid have the mental
capacity of children without the supervision restrictions.” By labeling
women as inferior, incels rationalized the legitimate rights of men to oppress
them. Within this view, women and men are not and should not be equals in
any sense. This was evident in multiple quotes across the forums, as with
this comment from simcel:

Woman [sic] don’t deserve the right to vote. They can’t think logically or come
to any of their own conclusions, everything they do is for some Chad and lacks
any thought at all. They don’t deserve a fucking say in anything, they don’t care
about anything beyond having sex with some idiot with a six pack.

Similarly, the user manletcel used religion to justify the subjugation of women
writing: “When you force women to wear burqas every time they leave the
house and restrict their interactions with men other than their husbands, you’re
eliminating the means by which women become attention addiction junkies,
theoretically preserving marriages and families.” These boundaries allow
incels to retain some sense of worth despite their perceived marginalization
from sexual relationships and the status afforded to other men.

Male Oppression
The normative order of male oppression focused on the perception that men
were oppressed within modern society. Incels consider themselves an
16 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

oppressed group due to their biological subordination to more masculine

males as well as their social subordination to the “modern woman.” Forum
users discussed both generalized male oppression and specific incel-oppres-
sion, as in this quote from lordcel:

As a male, we have no rights, the entire world is against us, women don’t care
about us … the only males with male privileged are chads … and even they are
beginning to slip into the same boat … like how can I be happy when so many
males are oppressed by this terrible world.

The normative order of male oppression is consistent with previous red-pill

literature such as Warren Farrall’s The Myth of Male Power and popular blog-
based literature discussing the hardships of men (Nagle, 2017). For example,
multiple individuals writing on behalf of men’s rights advocacy, such as Paul
Elam (2019), have actively criticized social institutions, such as feminism
and family court systems, as being especially biased against males. Red-pill
literature is actively consumed by members of the incel community. For
example, a poster stated: “divorce means not only risk of never seeing his
(even if actually biologically his) children again, but being homeless and in
debt thanks to the alimony robbery. All divorce courts are biased toward
females.”
Consistent with previous work conducted by Donnelly et al. (2001), incels
also discussed the barriers of dating double standards and male socialization.
They conceptualized male oppression around gendered socialization and a
perceived marginalization from “male-ness.” For example, a user noted:
“there is a double standard. Women expect males to carry the date and be the
lively jesters making it entertaining. Never do they look in the mirror or self-
reflect of them putting zero effort into the relationship of making it
happen.”
Incels mentioned their exclusion from the sexual market as a consequence
of socialized expectations of male-ness from which they feel alienated. For
instance, their preoccupation with attractiveness caused them significant dis-
tress. One entire thread in a forum was dedicated to whether incels should
seek out plastic surgery in order to increase their chances of inclusion. These
anxieties are found in other masculinity research concerning male body
image issues in response to media representation (Waling, 2017). In addition,
incels discussed differences in gender-socialization and lamented that to
grow up male is to grow up unable to express yourself. As OnceLaidCel,
wrote:

As a boy, I could never be myself and express myself. My father was not there
for me. Whenever I was enthusiastic, I was silenced. Whenever I showed
O’Malley et al. 17

intention I was restricted. Whenever I [wanted] to go outdoors I was not

allowed.

Thus, incels legitimized traditional ideas of masculinity, as well as a desire

for more masculine expression and diversity. Instead of criticizing toxic mas-
culine socialization, incels blamed feminists and so-called social justice war-
riors who they claimed invalidate male struggle and continue control access
to the sex market. Conversations concerning male oppression focused on the
hypocrisy of women, societal double standards that are biased in favor of
female privilege and power, and the offensive mischaracterization of incels
by social justice advocates.

Legitimizing Violence and Revenge

Subcultural interpretations of female behavior, the sexual market, and male
oppression promoted general feelings of animosity towards society and spe-
cific hatred towards females. In turn, incel forum participants made com-
ments encouraging and justifying violence against women. As a result, all
four normative orders reflexively converge to give meaning to a fifth norm
within incel forums: violence. Violence was actively discussed among forum
users through allusions to “going ER,” which stands for Eliot Rodger, a self-
identified incel who murdered seven other people before committing suicide.
“Going ER” was used both as an innocuous expression to describe being
pushed to the limit, as well as a way to vent frustration about their perceived
victimization.
Although approval of Eliot Rodger himself, and mass violence in general,
was mixed there were user comments that glorified the behavior of Eliot
Rodger and others. Users posted stories of men murdering women and
“normies” into a folder called “lifefuel.” This section was intended to give
incels a feeling of joy and hope. For instance, one thread linked to an article
in which five female bank tellers were murdered during a rampage shooting
in Florida. Multiple posters responded with comments, such as: “Finally a
hero who can aim,” “He chosen his targets wisely. What a slayer,” “lifefuel,”
and “Pure and raw LifeFuel™. I will sleep a lot better now.”
In this exchange, the letters “ER,” and “CHO” were capitalized to pay
respect and homage to both Elliot Rodger (i.e., ER) and Virginia Tech shooter
Seung-Hui Cho. It was common for incels to use this code to promote vio-
lence in other posters. As Gymcel responded to another poster, “Just accept
yourself and go out there bro.” Incels tended to support others who indicated
a desire to be violent:
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

If you were to hypothetically [Go ER], I would hypothetically recommend that

you write a manifesto on the blackpill, why you did it, mention the fucked up
state of hypergamy, dumb sluts, and explicitly link it to incel ness like ER. Also
I would recommend you livestream you doing it and upload it to live leak. If
people saw ER in action, I bet it would inspire mores lol. (garbagecel)

Not all forum users supported the use of violence, though many minimized
harm to “deserving” victims and glorified offenders. The most reasonable
target for violence across the forum populations were women. As one poster
commented, “Life fuel, [mass shooters] are hero’s. But I only like foids
[female humanoids] get killed. Not really a fan of random ppl dying.” Women
were constructed as deserving targets for retribution through physical and/or
sexual violence, as noted in this post:

I really want to kill this whore. I would punch her in her face over and over
again and force her to say this phrase over and over again: “Teehee you are not
entitled to this, but I am entitled to anything, now rot.” I will make her rot in
hell for sure. I will turn her life into a living hell.

Similarly, incels discussed their approval of more indirect, passive forms of

violence as an alternative to active, physical violence. Since women were
constructed as deserving of violence, a lack of intervention when a woman is
in danger or is victimized can be an act of revenge. This was evident in mul-
tiple posts, as noted by remembercel: “Reminder, if you deny me sex or vali-
dation, I deny you safety and protection when you get raped in the alleyway
by an ethnic.” A more detailed post by romancel provided their thoughts on
female victims of sexual violence in general:

There are no laws saying you have to help anyone who’s getting raped or
murdered, or report it to the police. Not in most jurisdictions, at least. If I saw
this happening while passing by, and the “victim” called out to me for help, I’d
just chortle and keep going my own way. Most rapists are close associates to
the ones they rape, so in all likelihood, she deserved it and was probably asking
for it.

Taken as a whole, this norm incorporates aspects of the other subcultural

norms espoused by incels to justify the view that women are particularly
deserving of any violence they experience. In this sense, both the informal
and formal reinforcement of violence within the incel subculture is informed
by key values and beliefs related to the injustice of the sexual market, the
natural evil of women, the legitimacy of masculine identity, and the oppres-
sion of men.
O’Malley et al. 19

Discussion and Conclusion

Social media and online spaces provide avenues for individuals to connect
with others who share their interests, no matter how deviant or esoteric (Holt,
2007; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Weimann, 2011). These platforms enable the
formation of subcultures, through which individuals justify involvement in
deviant and criminal activities (Holt, 2007; Maratea, 2011; Miller, 1958).
There is also growing concern over the ways that extremist and violent ideo-
logical groups now use the internet and social media as a means to expose
individuals to their beliefs and encourage violence (Freilich, Chermak, et al.,
2015; Holt et al., 2017; Weimann, 2011). One particular group, the involun-
tarily celibate, use social media and the internet as a platform to express their
feelings of marginalization and rage (Ging, 2019). Individuals have engaged
in acts of targeted violence against the general public as a result of their
acceptance of an incel identity (Ging, 2019; Jennings, 2018; Kini, 2017;
Nagle, 2017; Tolentino, 2018). There is, however, little research examining
incel communities from a subcultural perspective, calling to question what
they value and how this might justify involvement in violence.
To address this question, this study examined the subcultural norms of
incels using posts from two online forums run by and for the incel commu-
nity. The findings demonstrated the incel subculture was organized around
five normative orders: the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimiz-
ing masculinity, male oppression, and violence. Individuals structure their
dealings with others off-line as a function of these beliefs, which are under-
stood using natural selection and a bio-deterministic framework. The values
expressed are consistent with previous research on the “manosphere” gener-
ally as an internet culture organized around an anti-female perception
(Nagle, 2017).
The belief system of those who identify as incels is consistent with other
deviant and extremist groups as they are formed as a reaction to their diffi-
culty in accessing sexual relationships (Holt et al., 2017; McCauley &
Moskalenko, 2008; Simi & Futrell, 2010). Incels used forums as a method of
social support and received validation through other posters. Incel communi-
ties allow male users to consume and propagate ideas and media, legitimate
or manufactured, that reinforce anti-women beliefs and support the notion
that they are an oppressed and marginalized group.
The incel community can be understood as a subculture that directly tar-
gets women because of their role in the perceived marginalization and subju-
gation of men (Dragiewicz, 2008; Gotell & Dutton, 2016; van Valkenburgh,
2018). As a response, participants in the forums encouraged and condoned
violence against women through both direct calls for violence and indirect
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

support of sexual violence against women generally. Males who were viewed
as superior to incels were also justifiable targets for violence, though they
were not as inferior as those women who foster reproductive competition and
freely navigate and control the sexual market. Only through subjugating
women could the participants in incel forums regain a sense of power.
Participation in these forums may generate acceptance of the core beliefs
that females are an evil gender who are undeservedly in power. Such notions
facilitate anger and attitudes favorable to violence towards women while fur-
ther legitimizing toxic gender inequalities. A sense of disenfranchisement
may lead young males towards these online communities where a pseudo-
scientific, but highly attractive, philosophy serves to begin the process of
radicalization. Consistent with male support theory, the social group pro-
cesses and perceptions of masculinity may contribute to real-world physical
violence committed by incels.
It should be noted that a very small number of individuals are likely to act
upon the violent beliefs and ideas espoused online, as noted in similar
research on violent extremism (Borum, 2011a; Hamm & Spaaij, 2017;
Weimann, 2011). Additional study is needed to assess the factors that may
account for involvement in incel-perpetrated violence. In particular, research-
ers must consider the extent to which individuals express awakenings or turn-
ing points that increase their willingness to accept an incel identity (refer also
to Simi & Futrell, 2010). Similarly, it is unknown if individuals who are more
willing to engage in acts of violence come to accept an incel identity through
direct engagement with others or move through a self-radicalization process
of observing content without interacting (refer to Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt
et al., 2017). What is clear, however; is that despite the minority of users who
engage in physical violence, online incel communities are inherently
dangerous.
To that end, this analysis has implications for our understanding of crimi-
nological and sociological subcultural theories of behavior. Historically,
researchers have focused on the formation of subcultures as a rejection of
broader social norms or norms and values, or as a way of opposing the domi-
nant culture (Maurer, 1974; Quinn & Forsyth, 2005; Wolfgang & Ferracuti,
1967; Young, 2011). In the case of incels, their subculture reflects a subver-
sion of the natural experience of rejection in the course of seeking romantic
partners. The online forums in this analysis present adherents with a subcul-
ture based on a maligned view of typical human experience that empowers its
adherence to use violence against an entire gender. It is unclear to what extent
the views of the participants in the forums sampled are informed by actual
negative encounters with women and men. Additionally, the online nature of
this sample limited our ability to assess the degree to which participants
O’Malley et al. 21

engaged with others who share their views in off-line spaces, which may help
to reinforce their online opinions (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017; Holt, 2007). Future
research is needed to better document the intersectionality of the incel move-
ment in on and off-line spaces, and the ways experiences in one or both envi-
ronments affect acceptance of incel identity (refer also to Blevins & Holt,
2009; Holt, 2007).
Similarly, there is evidence of growth in online subcultures that stigmatize
other aspects of the human experience, including opposition to vaccinations
(Hotez, 2019; Moran et al., 2016) and scientific research broadly (Hotez et
al., 2020; Wootton et al., 2019). While these groups have not generated direct
acts of violence against specific subgroups in society, they may produce indi-
rect harms as with a lack of vaccinations for children that may decrease herd
immunity and disproportionately increase risk of illness (Hotez, 2019; Moran
et al., 2016; Wootton et al., 2019). Therefore, research is needed to better
understand the foreground and situational dynamics that compel individuals
toward subcultures that weaponize basic aspects of the human experience
(Holt, 2007; Moran et al., 2016). Studies must disentangle the social and
behavioral factors that lead online subcultural engagement to affect individ-
ual actions in the real world, especially when acts of serious harm or violence
are involved (Hamm, 2002; Holt, 2007; Holt & Bossler, 2015).
The findings of this analysis also provide potential direction for policies to
help counter the ideological beliefs of incels. Although incel forums continue
to be monitored and censored, many may simply move to less visible online
spaces (Hamm & Spaaij, 2017). Thus, simply removing posts that are harm-
ful or unacceptable will not address the underlying beliefs. The use of pro-
grams designed to counter violent extremism (CVE) in the United States
involves presenting broad-spectrum messaging campaigns to those audiences
most likely to seek out or engage with extremist movements (Koehler, 2016;
Williams et al., 2016). The content of these campaigns usually focusses on
dispelling reasons or justifications for the use of violence. Targeted messag-
ing may be one way in which incel beliefs and values could be addressed
(Koehler, 2016; Williams et al., 2016). These interventions should occur
online within the space in which individuals are most comfortable.
Messages could focus on countering the narratives surrounding gender,
sexuality, and power. Paradoxically, while many incels expressed nostalgia for
the patriarchal structures of the past, incels are also highly critical of tradi-
tional constructions of masculinity. Prevention efforts that are strength-based
and include education surrounding toxic masculinities, and gender equality
may be useful and may allow for a healthier expression of anger or negative
emotions related to lack of self-esteem or self-worth. It is possible to have
discussions regarding their beliefs and to validate their experiences while also
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

dismantling narratives of females as “the enemy” or the root of their problems.

This may be an important step in preventing or deescalating radicalization.
In addition, it is crucial that education for youth, specifically young males,
include critical media engagement and consumption, as these sources may
facilitate and reinforce dangerous beliefs that condone gender-based vio-
lence. This education is known as digital literacy and critical consciousness
(Watts et al., 2002) can help to reduce engagement and belief in media that
advocates gender inequality or gender-based violence.
The present study had several limitations that should be noted. The results
of this exploratory investigation are limited due to the small sample size of
threads operating on two online forums. In addition, the selected threads
seemed to be heavily dominated by key forum users who posted more than
others. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize these results without incorporat-
ing additional threads and forums to the data analysis. Despite these limita-
tions, the findings of this study elucidated a need for interventions, through
prevention and outreach with male youth who may be vulnerable to the val-
ues and beliefs espoused by incels as well as self-proclaimed incels online.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

ORCID iD
Roberta Liggett O’Malley https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1960-7078

References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to cod-
ing and analysis. New York University Press.
Baele, S. J., Brace, L., & Coan, T. G. (2019). From “incel” to “saint”: Analyzing
the violent worldview behind the 2018 Toronto attack. Terrorism and Political
Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1
638256
Bartlett, J., & Miller, C. (2012). The edge of violence: Towards telling the difference
between violent and non-violent radicalization. Terrorism and Political Violence,
24(1), 1–21.
O’Malley et al. 23

BBC. (2018a, April 25). Alek Minassian Toronto van attack suspect praised “incel”
killer. Author. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43883052
BBC. (2018b, April 28). Elliot Rodger: How misogynist killer became “incel hero.”
Author. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189
Blevins, K. R., & Holt, T. J. (2009). Examining the virtual subculture of
Johns. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38, 619–648. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0891241609342239
Borum, R. (2011a). Radicalization into violent extremism I: A review of social sci-
ence theories. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 7–36.
Borum, R. (2011b). Radicalization into violent extremism II: A review of conceptual
models and empirical research. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(4), 37–62.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Burgess, E. O., Donnelly, D., Dillard, J., & Davis, R. (2001). Surfing for sex: Studying
involuntary celibacy using the internet. Sexuality & Culture, 5(3), 5–30.
Carroll, J. S., Willoughby, B., Badger, S., Nelson, L. J., McNamara Barry, C., &
Madsen, S. D. (2007). So close, yet so far away: The impact of varying marital
horizons on emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 219–247.
Caspi, A. (2002). Social selection, social causation, and developmental pathways:
Empirical strategies for better understanding how individuals and environments
are linked across the life-course. In L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (Eds.), Paths to
successful development: Personality in the life course (pp. 281–301). Cambridge
University Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Free Press.
Cohen, A. K., & Short, J. F. (1958). Research in delinquent subcultures. Journal of
Social Issues, 14(3), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1958.tb01414.x
Collins, W. A. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance of romantic
relationships during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.1301001
Conti, A. (2018, November 5). What we know about the “male supremacist” who shot
up a Florida Yoga Studio. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xp4kk/
what-we-know-about-the-male-supremacist-who-shot-up-a-florida-yoga-studio
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, can-
ons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF00988593
Crisafi, D. N., Mullins, A. R., & Jasinski, J. L. (2016). The rise of the “virtual pred-
ator”: Technologyand the expanding reach of intimate partner abuse. In J. N.
Navarro, S. Clevenger & C. D. Marcum (Eds.), The intersection between intimate
partner abuse, technology, and cybercrime: Examining the virtual enemy (pp.
95–123). Carolina Academic Press.
Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially
cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social
Psychology, 46(4), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000248
Donnelly, D. (1993). Sexually inactive marriages. The Journal of Sex Research, 30,
171–179.
24 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Donnelly, D., Burgess, E., Anderson, S., Davis, R., & Dillard, J. (2001). Involuntary
celibacy: A life course analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 38(2), 159–169. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00224490109552083
Dragiewicz, M. (2008). Patriarchy reasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWA activ-
ism. Feminist Criminology, 3(2), 121–144.
Duggen, M., & Smith, A. (2013, July 3). 6% of online adults are reddit users. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/07/03/6-of-online-
adults-are-reddit-users/
Elam, P. D. (2019) Men, women, relationships: Surviving the plague of modern
masculinity. LPS Publishing.
Freilich, J. D., Adamczyk, A., Chermak, S. M., Boyd, K., & Parkin, W. S. (2015).
Disorganization, diversity and deadly far-right ideological violence: A county
level analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 383–411.
Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., & Gruenewald, J. (2015). The future of terrorism
research: A review essay. International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice, 39(4), 353–369.
Ging, D. (2019). Alphas, betas, and incels: Theorizing the masculini-
ties of the manosphere. Men and Masculinities, 22, 638–357. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1097184X17706401
Gotell, L., & Dutton, E. (2016). Sexual violence in the “manosphere”: Antifeminist
men’s rights discourses on rape. International Journal for Crime, Justice and
Social Democracy, 5(2), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310
Hamm, M. S. (2002). In bad company: America’s terrorist underground. Upne.
Hamm, M. S., & Spaaij, R. (2017). The age of lone wolf terrorism. Columbia
University Press.
Hegghammer, T. (2013). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining variation in Western
jihadists’ choice between domestic and foreign fighting. American Political
Science Review, 107, 1–15.
Herbert, S. (1998). Police Subculture Reconsidered. Criminology, 36(2), 343–370.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01251.x
Holt, T. J. (2007). Deviant Behavior subcultural evolution? examining the influence
of on-and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28,
171–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620601131065
Holt, T. J. (2010). Examining the Role of Technology in the Formation of Deviant
Subcultures. Social Science Computer Review, 28, 466–481. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0894439309351344
Holt, T. J., Blevins, K. R., & Burkert, N. (2010). Considering the pedophile subcul-
ture online. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063209344979
Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2015). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention
of technology-enabled offenses. Routledge.
Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2016). Internet-based radicalization as
enculturation to violent deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 47, 1–15.
Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2017). Internet-based radicalization as
enculturation to violent deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 38(8), 855–869.
O’Malley et al. 25

Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., & Lafree, G. (2018). Pathways toward ter-
rorism and genocide Examining the utility of social control and social learning in
the radicalization of violent and non-violent extremists. Dynamics of Asymmetric
Conflict, 11, 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2018.1470661
Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., Chermak, S. M., Mills, C., & Silva, J. (2019). Loners, col-
leagues, or peers? Assessing the social organization of radicalization. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(1), 83–105.
Hotez, P. (2019). The physician-scientist: Defending vaccines and combating anti-
science. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 129(6), 2169–2171.
Hotez, P. J., Nuzhath, T., & Colwell, B. (2020). Combatting vaccine hesitancy and
other 21st century social determinants in the global fight against measles. Current
Opinion in Virology, 41, 1–7.
Hutchings, A., & Holt, T. J. (2015). A crime script analysis of the online stolen data
market. British Journal of Criminology, 55(3), 596–614.
Ironwood, I. (2013). The Manosphere: How the res-pill, game, and the internet are
revalorizing masculinity for the 21st century. Red Pill Press.
Jenkins, P. (2001). Pedophiles and priests: Anatomy of a contemporary crisis. Oxford
University Press.
Jennings, R. (2018). Incels categorize women by personal style and attractiveness.
Vox. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/28/17290256/incel-chad-stacy-becky
Khalil, J., Horgan, J., & Zeuthen, M. (2019). The Attitudes-Behaviors Corrective
(ABC) model of violent extremism. Terrorism and Political Violence. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553.2019.1699793
Kini, A. N. (2017, November 15). How Reddit is teaching young men to hate women.
Vice. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gyj3yw/how-reddit-is-teaching-young-
men-to-hate-women
Klee, M. (2018). The disturbing reason incels are obsessed with teenage love. MEL
Magazine. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/incels-teenage-love
Koehler, D. (2016). Understanding deradicalization: Methods, tools and programs
for countering violent extremism. Routledge.
LaFree, G., & Bersani, B. (2014). County-level correlates of terrorist attacks in the
United States. Criminology and Public Policy, 13, 455–481.
LaFree, G., & Freilich, J. D. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of the criminology of ter-
rorism. John Wiley & Sons.
Laumann, E., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization
of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist,
4, 3–13.
Mann, D., & Sutton, M. (1998). Netcrime: More change in the organization of thiev-
ing. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 201–229.
Mccauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of Political Radicalization:
Pathways Toward Terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 20, 415–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09546550802073367
Maratea, R. J. (2011). Screwing the pooch: Legitimizing accounts in a zoophilia on-
line community. Deviant Behavior, 32(10), 918–943.
26 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Maurer, D. W. (1974). The American confidence man. Thomas.

McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2011). Friction: How radicalization happens to
them and us. Oxford University Press.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency.
Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351157803-2
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism a psychological explora-
tion. American Psychologist, 60(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.60.2.161
Moran, M. B., Lucas, M., Everhart, K., Morgan, A., & Prickett, E. (2016). What
makes anti-vaccine websites persuasive? A content analysis of techniques
used by antivaccine websites to engender anti-vaccine sentiment. Journal of
Communications in Healthcare, 9, 151–163.
Muir, W. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press.
Nagle, A. (2017). Kill all normies: The online culture wars from Tumblr and 4Chan
to the Alt-right and Trump. Zero Books.
Neugarten, B. L., Moore, J. M., & Lowe, J. C. (1968). Age norms, age constraints, and
adult socialization. In B. L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging: A reader in
social psychology (pp. 23–28). University of Chicago Press.
Parkin, W. S., & Freilich, J. D. (2015). Routine activities and right-wing extrem-
ists: An empirical comparison of the victims of ideologically and non-ideologi-
cally motivated homicides committed by American far-rightists. Terrorism and
Political Violence, 27, 182–203.
Quinn, J. F., & Forsyth, C. J. (2005). Describing sexual behavior in the era of the
internet: A typology for empirical research. Deviant Behavior, 26(3), 191–207.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Salter, M., & Crofts, T. (2015). Responding to revenge porn: Challenging online
legal immunity. In L. Comella & S. Tarrant (Eds.), New views on pornography:
Sexuality, politics and the law (pp. 233–253). Praeger.
Shulman, S., & Connolly, J. (2013). State of the field the challenge of romantic rela-
tionships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging
Adulthood, 1, 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330
Silke, A. (2008). Research on terrorism: A review of the impact of 9/11 and the global
war on terrorism. In H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke & B. Ganor (Eds.),
Terrorism informatics: Knowledge management and data mining for homeland
security (pp. 27–50). Springer.
Silverman, D. (2013). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book
about qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Simi, P., & Futrell, R. (2010). American swastika: Inside the white power movement’s
hidden spaces of hate. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Skolnick, J. (1966). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Smith, B. L., & Damphousse, K. R. (2009). Patterns of precursor behaviors in the life
span of a US Environmental Terrorist Group. Criminology and Public Policy, 8,
475–496.
O’Malley et al. 27

Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological

Review, 51(2), 273–286.
Tolentino, J. (2018, May 15). The rage of the incels. The New Yorker. https://www.
newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels
Valkenburgh, S. P. van. (2018). Digesting the red pill: Masculinity and neoliberalism
in the manosphere. Men and Masculinities. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18816118
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and
synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 14, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008).
Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6),
1325–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012453
Waling, A. (2017). “We are so pumped full of shit by the media:” Masculinity, maga-
zines, and the lack of self-identification. Men and Masculinities, 20(4), 427–452.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X16652654
Watts, R. J., Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Pratt, T. (2002). Enhancing critical consciousness
in young African American men: A psychoeducational approach. Psychology of
Men and Masculinity, 3(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.3.1.41
Weaver, K. S., & Vescio, T. K. (2015). The justification of social inequality in
response to masculinity threats. Sex Roles, 72, 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11199-015-0484-y
Weimann, G. (2011). Cyber-Fatwas and terrorism. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism,
34, 765–781.
Williams, M. J., Horgan, J. G., & Evans, W. P. (2016). The critical role of friends in
networks for countering violent extremism: Toward a theory of vicarious help-
seeking. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 8(1), 45–65.
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards and
integrated theory in criminology. Sage Publications.
Wootton, S., Hotez, P. J., & Boom, J. (2019). Texas: Averting disease and confront-
ing a new vaccine refusal hierarchy. Journal of Applied Research on Children:
Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 10, 1–4.
Young, J. (2011). Moral panics and the transgressive other. Crime, Media, Culture,
7(3), 245–258.

Author Biographies
Roberta Liggett O’Malley, MA, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminal
Justice at Michigan State University. Her research interests include technology-facil-
itated sexual violence, sexual offending, and life-course criminology. She is a mem-
ber of Michigan State’s Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence.

Karen Holt, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at

Michigan State University whose research focuses on sexual deviance and offending
28 Journal of Interpersonal Violence

and deviance and identity. Her work has been published in Sexual Abuse and Deviant
Behavior. She currently serves on the Board of Directors for Small Talk Children’s
Advocacy Center.

Thomas J. Holt, PhD, is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan

State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role
of the internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. His work has been
published in various journals including Crime and Delinquency, Deviant Behavior,
The Journal of Criminal Justice, and Youth and Society.