Incel : Involuntary Celibacy
The term "incel" is short for "involuntary celibate" and refers to individuals, typically men, who struggle to find romantic or sexual partners despite wanting such relationships. Over time, the term has taken on a broader cultural significance, often associated with certain online communities and subcultures that have become subjects of intense public scrutiny and academic research. While the concept began as a gender-inclusive support community, it has evolved into something far more complex and, in some cases, concerning.
The incel community originated in 1997 when a Canadian university student named Alana created what she called "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project," establishing an online space intended to support individuals across genders and sexual orientations who struggled to find romantic connections. The original site functioned as an informal support group featuring discussion forums, article sharing, and a mailing list that served a diverse community spanning ages, genders, and sexual orientations. Alana herself eventually found success in dating and left the website in the hands of other members. It was only years later, after the 2014 Isla Vista attack by Elliot Rodger, that she discovered the community had splintered into male-only assemblies whose sexual frustrations were often directed at women. This transformation from an inclusive support network to what researchers now describe as a misogynistic subculture represents a significant shift in the community's character and purpose.
The rise of what researchers call "second wave incels" has coincided with a broader decline in sexual activity among American youth in general, suggesting that modern young people are experiencing rates of sexlessness that diverge from both their predecessors and sociocultural expectations of hypersexual adolescence. This contextual backdrop suggests that the incel phenomenon exists within larger societal trends affecting intimacy, connection, and relationship formation in the digital age.
Characteristics and Belief Systems
Contemporary incel communities are characterized by several interrelated normative structures that shape how members understand themselves and their place in society. Research analyzing thousands of posts from online incel forums has identified five core normative orders: the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, male oppression, and violence. These frameworks provide incels with explanatory narratives for their difficulties in forming romantic and sexual relationships, though these narratives often reflect distorted or extreme interpretations of social dynamics.
A central belief within many incel communities involves the conviction that societal norms and biological factors such as looks, height, or status heavily disadvantage them in what they term the "dating market" or "sexual marketplace." Many incels subscribe to ideas like the "80/20 rule" or theories of "hypergamy," which suggest that women prefer a small percentage of highly attractive or wealthy men, leaving average or below-average men without romantic prospects. These beliefs, while not supported by empirical evidence about actual relationship formation patterns, provide a framework through which incels interpret their experiences of rejection and social isolation.
The "black pill" ideology represents perhaps the most nihilistic aspect of incel belief systems. Subscribers to this philosophy maintain that relationships are impossible for them due to immutable characteristics such as physical appearance or genetics. This worldview contrasts with the "red pill" ideology found elsewhere in what researchers call the "manosphere," which suggests that men can improve their romantic success through self-improvement and behavioral changes. The black pill perspective is fundamentally fatalistic, offering little hope for individual agency or change, and this fatalism appears to correlate with more extreme attitudes and beliefs within the community.
Diversity and Heterogeneity Within Incel Communities
Recent comprehensive research has challenged many prevailing stereotypes about who incels are and what drives their participation in these communities. A 2025 study surveying 561 self-identified incels across the United Kingdom and United States, conducted in collaboration with the UK's Commission for Countering Extremism, revealed a more nuanced portrait than media representations typically suggest. Incels come from diverse backgrounds with varied political beliefs, ethnic identities, and life circumstances. While media portrayals often stereotype incels as young, white, right-wing men who are not in employment, education, or training, primary data collection has revealed that these characterizations represent misconceptions about the community's actual composition.
The research found that if any characteristics could be identified as most consistent across the sample, they would be incredibly poor mental health and feelings of bitterness, frustration, and disdain toward women, though even these traits show variation within the sample. Politically, the surveyed incels demonstrated diversity that contradicted common assumptions, with the sample average being slightly left of center rather than uniformly right-wing. This political heterogeneity suggests that incel ideology may not map neatly onto traditional political spectrums and that the community draws members from across the political landscape.
Research examining subcultural involvement has identified three distinct forms of engagement with incel communities: all-encompassing involvement where the identity becomes central to an individual's self-concept, active participation in forums and discussions, and loose attachment where individuals identify with the term but maintain distance from community norms. Drawing on the concept of digital drift, researchers have demonstrated that individuals can flexibly move across these categories, changing their level of involvement and attachment to the incel subculture over time. This fluidity suggests that incel identity is not necessarily permanent or monolithic, and that pathways both into and out of these communities exist.
The finding that there appear to be multiple subgroups within incel communities has important implications for intervention strategies. Different pathways into the community may require different types of support or intervention, and the existence of subgroups might explain why different institutions such as the National Health Service and counter-extremism programs sometimes find it difficult to establish who might be best placed to intervene in individual cases.
Mental Health and Psychological Distress
Perhaps the most alarming finding from recent research on incels concerns the extraordinarily high rates of mental health issues and suicidal ideation within the community. The 2025 comprehensive study found that 37 percent of incels reported experiencing suicidal thoughts on a daily basis, a rate that researchers described as among the most alarming findings demanding urgent attention. This statistic suggests that incels may pose as much danger to themselves, if not more, than they do to others, reframing discussions about the community that have often focused primarily on the threat of outward-directed violence.
The prevalence of poor mental health extends beyond suicidal ideation to encompass high levels of depression, anxiety, insecure attachment styles, fear of being single, and profound loneliness. Research has consistently found that incels report significantly greater degrees of depressive and anxious symptoms compared to control groups, alongside difficulties with romantic rejection that exceed typical experiences. One survey of over 1,000 users of the AI companion app Replika found that while 90 percent began using it to cope with loneliness, these patterns of isolation and mental health challenges appear to predate engagement with incel communities for many individuals, suggesting that psychological distress may be both a cause and consequence of involvement in these spaces.
The research has also identified notably high rates of autistic traits within incel populations, occurring at levels much higher than in the general population. This finding points to the need for greater clinical attention to neurodiversity within this group and suggests that some individuals may have genuine difficulties navigating complex social and romantic situations due to developmental differences rather than simply subscribing to toxic ideologies. The intersection of autism spectrum characteristics with the challenges of modern dating markets may create particular vulnerabilities that drive some individuals toward incel communities seeking explanation and support for their experiences.
Pathway analysis has revealed that poor mental health and ideological adherence were twice as predictive of harmful attitudes as other factors, suggesting dual routes through which individuals may develop concerning beliefs. One pathway is linked to high levels of autistic traits, histories of bullying and abuse, and poor self-esteem. The other is associated with antisocial personality traits such as psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, alongside extreme right-wing views. These distinct pathways suggest that interventions might need to be tailored to address different underlying issues, with some individuals requiring mental health support and others needing ideological counter-programming.
The Role of Online Forums and Community Dynamics
Incel communities operate almost exclusively in online spaces, congregating on internet forums and platforms including Reddit, 4chan, and standalone forums to share experiences, vent frustrations, and discuss their views on relationships and society. These online environments create spaces for the development and reinforcement of subcultural norms, values, and beliefs that may diverge significantly from mainstream perspectives on relationships and gender dynamics. The anonymous and text-based nature of these forums can facilitate both genuine support exchanges and the amplification of extreme views without the moderating influence of face-to-face social consequences.
The forums often include self-deprecating humor, nihilism, and critiques of societal expectations of masculinity, creating a distinctive linguistic and cultural environment. However, research has found that these spaces are not uniform in their content or extremity. Misogynistic incel forums that exclude women and promote extremist content exist alongside more moderate discussion spaces, and even within individual forums, there is significant variation in members' beliefs and the extremity of content posted. This heterogeneity presents challenges for researchers and those seeking to understand or intervene in these communities, as generalizations about "incel forums" may not capture important distinctions between different online spaces.
An important consideration for understanding online incel discourse is that content is disproportionately generated by a small pool of highly active users. Research analyzing the incels.me website found that only 46 percent of members were active posters, averaging 1.6 posts per day, while the top fifty posters contributed at a five-fold rate, with 19 users averaging nearly twenty posts daily. This pattern, observed across many online communities, means that analyses of forum content may reflect the perspectives of a vocal minority rather than the full range of views held by community members. Furthermore, research has found that frequent posters tend to score higher on Dark Triad personality traits compared to lurkers who read but do not contribute original content, suggesting that the most visible discourse may not represent typical member attitudes.
The linguistic patterns found in incel forums reveal mechanisms through which misogyny, hate speech, and radicalization processes may translate into attitudes that could support violence. Widespread aggressive and violent content creates an environment where extremist views can be normalized through repeated exposure, and mechanisms of social learning and identity formation operate within these digital spaces. However, research also identifies counter-narratives within incel communities that dispute black pill ideologies and offer alternative viewpoints. Spaces providing perspectives that counter prevailing incel ideology are emerging, suggesting that these communities are not entirely monolithic and that possibilities for internal critique and change may exist.
Violence, Extremism, and Public Safety Concerns
While the majority of incels have not engaged in violent behavior, several high-profile attacks have been linked to individuals identifying with or inspired by incel ideology, drawing public and media attention and sparking debates about extremism within these groups. The 2014 Isla Vista attack by Elliot Rodger, who has attained a disturbing cult-like status among some incels, represents a watershed moment that brought the incel phenomenon into public consciousness. Rodger posted an autobiographical manifesto and videos online before the attack, which then attracted more members to incel forums and contributed to the community's growth and radicalization.
Subsequent attacks in Toronto, Tallahassee, and other locations by individuals expressing incel-related grievances have led security experts and policymakers to position incels as a growing national and international security threat. Concerns about violence from incels have increased attention from law enforcement, counter-extremism professionals, and researchers studying radicalization processes. The manifestos written by mass attackers linked with the incel phenomenon have been analyzed to understand the belief systems and worldviews that might be conducive to violence, revealing common themes of grievance, entitlement, and dehumanization of women.
Research examining the incel community's worldview suggests that certain elements may be particularly conducive to violence. These include beliefs in male oppression, the legitimization of violence as a response to perceived injustice, and the framing of women as fundamentally antagonistic to men's interests. However, the pathway from holding these beliefs to actually engaging in violence is neither straightforward nor inevitable, and the vast majority of individuals subscribing to incel ideologies do not commit violent acts. Understanding what distinguishes those who act violently from those who do not remains an important area of investigation.
A 2025 study examining incel beliefs and support for political violence among American males found that subjects who hold incel beliefs were 124 percent more supportive of political violence as an abstract behavior and 45 percent more supportive when political violence was presented in a specific context. The research identified two routes through which incel ideology reinforces support for political violence: males holding incel beliefs were more likely to suffer from masculine gender role stress contributing to heightened aggression, and they were more likely to exhibit resentments toward social outgroups contributing to illiberal political attitudes. Notably, the study found that approximately 77 percent of surveyed males either somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one of nine incel tenets, while around 16 percent expressed agreement with all nine beliefs, suggesting that elements of incel ideology have permeated mainstream discourse beyond explicitly identified incel communities.
Media Representation and Public Discourse
The manner in which incels are portrayed in media and public discourse has significant implications for how society understands and responds to the phenomenon. Recent scholarship has raised concerns about the tendency to pathologize incels as "deviant others" as a means of localizing wider societal sexism to select groups. This framing may allow mainstream society to distance itself from uncomfortable conversations about how sexist motifs and scripts are normalized in various social spaces, including media itself, by confining explicit sexism to fringe communities. Such an approach may omit recognition of how commonplace gender-based violence and misogyny actually are in society at large.
Critics have noted bias in studying, analyzing, and reporting on incel communities, with some research including seemingly concrete assertions about group members' identities, behaviors, and values without clearly defining or demonstrating understanding of incel culture and its dynamics. Meta-studies of incel-focused research have concluded that collated findings do not support the position that all members of incel communities uphold and identify with negative traits recurrently presented as definitive anchors of "incel identity." This represents a concerning dynamic where personal opinions, potentially bolstered by media trends of distaste, can influence academic scholarship and public understanding.
The dangers of researchers focusing on a vocal minority speaking for an entire group have been discussed extensively in recent literature. Given that incel forums vary heavily in the extremity of members' beliefs and that most content is generated by a small percentage of highly active users, there is risk that analyses may not capture the full range of experiences and perspectives within incel communities. Additionally, media attention following violent incidents may create moral panics that exaggerate the threat posed by incels while simultaneously failing to address the legitimate struggles with mental health, social isolation, and relationship difficulties that drive many individuals toward these communities in the first place.
The Broader Context of Male Loneliness and Social Isolation
The incel phenomenon exists within a broader societal context of increasing loneliness and social isolation that affects populations across demographic categories. The United States Surgeon General declared loneliness an epidemic in 2023, noting that it carries health impacts comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes daily. Research indicates that one in six Americans feel lonely or isolated from those around them all or most of the time, with rates particularly elevated among younger adults. Among those aged 18 to 25, studies have found that 61 percent report feeling seriously lonely, a statistic that crosses gender lines and suggests systemic issues with how modern society facilitates human connection.
The discourse around a specifically "male loneliness epidemic" has been subject to considerable debate and scrutiny. While some surveys have found that 15 percent of men reported having no close friends compared to 10 percent of women in 2021, and global data from 2023 and 2024 showed that 25 percent of American men under 35 reported feeling lonely compared to 18 percent of young women, other research has found that men and women report similar overall levels of loneliness and satisfaction with emotional support. Recent analysis suggests that people are indeed spending more time alone than they were 20 years ago, but the trend has been similar for both men and women, and that factors like educational attainment and socioeconomic status may be more important in understanding differences in loneliness than gender alone.
Where gender differences do appear in loneliness research, they often manifest less in overall loneliness levels and more in specific dimensions of social connection and isolation. Men appear more likely to report feelings of disconnection or irrelevance, with higher rates of saying they are "not meaningfully part of any group or community" or that their "place in the world doesn't feel relevant." Research using broader social isolation indices that capture the size and frequency of contacts, participation in community life, and relationship status has found that men are slightly more isolated than women at every age, with gaps largest among those who were never married. These findings suggest that while loneliness as a subjective experience may be similarly distributed, objective measures of social connection and integration may show modest but meaningful gender differences.
The erosion of traditional male social spaces and friendship patterns has been identified as a contributing factor to male isolation. Depth of friendships among men appears to have become increasingly shallow over time, with connections often remaining focused on surface-level topics like sports, work, or financial matters rather than emotional vulnerability and support. Societal norms around masculinity that discourage emotional expression and vulnerability create barriers to the kinds of intimate friendships that provide protection against loneliness and mental health challenges. Young men describing their experiences often reference fears of rejection, appearing weak, or violating masculine norms if they open up even to those they consider good friends.
The Emergence of AI Companions and Digital Intimacy
The rise of AI companions, particularly AI girlfriends, represents a significant development in how individuals, especially young men, are attempting to address feelings of loneliness and relationship difficulties. As of early 2025, the global AI girlfriend market was valued at approximately 2.8 billion dollars, with projections estimating it will reach 9.5 billion dollars by 2028. The term "AI girlfriend" has risen by 2,400 percent in search volume over the past two years according to Google Trends, and recent studies found that almost one in five American adults have chatted with an AI system designed to simulate a romantic partner. This explosive growth reflects both technological advances in conversational AI and changing emotional needs in younger, digitally native generations.
Popular AI companion platforms like Replika, Character.AI, Snapchat's My AI, and Xiaoice boast hundreds of millions of users collectively. Replika alone has an estimated 25 million users, while Snapchat's My AI received over 10 billion messages in its first two months after launch. Character.AI demonstrates particularly high engagement metrics, with the average user having 25 sessions per day and spending about 1.5 hours daily in the app. The demographics reveal that 57 percent of Character.AI's 233 million users are aged 18 to 24, and studies suggest that 80 percent of Generation Z would be open to marrying an AI, indicating that this generation, despite growing up more digitally connected than any before, also reports the highest levels of loneliness and may be pioneering new forms of relationship.
Research on the psychological effects of AI companions has yielded complex and sometimes contradictory findings. A comprehensive 2025 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research found that AI companions successfully alleviate loneliness on par with interacting with another person, and more effectively than other activities such as watching YouTube videos. The research demonstrated that AI companions provide momentary reductions in loneliness after use, with users reporting feeling heard and understood by their AI companions. Consumers underestimated the degree to which AI companions would improve their loneliness, suggesting skepticism about the technology that was not borne out by actual experience. The researchers hypothesized that "feeling heard" is more critical in alleviating loneliness than communication performance, because one of the primary sources of loneliness is the perceived lack of social and emotional support.
However, longer-term studies have identified concerning patterns suggesting that the benefits of AI companions may diminish or reverse over extended use. Research following users over four weeks found that heavy daily AI companion use correlated with greater loneliness, increased dependency, and reduced real-world socializing, exactly opposite the intended effect. Large-scale surveys of more than 1,000 Replika users found that while 90 percent began using the app to cope with loneliness, prolonged use frequently led to emotional dependency and diminished motivation for in-person socializing. Linguistic patterns in long-term user communications revealed troubling shifts toward increased expressions of loneliness and even suicidal ideation, suggesting that the same AI companions that initially help users overcome loneliness may inadvertently intensify it when real human connection remains absent.
Psychological Mechanisms of AI Attachment
The bond between humans and AI companions operates through several well-established psychological mechanisms. The ELIZA effect, named after an early chatbot, describes the tendency of humans to unconsciously assume computer behaviors are analogous to human behaviors, attributing understanding and intentionality to systems that are fundamentally algorithmic. Modern large language models exploit this tendency far more effectively than early chatbots, producing responses that feel eerily authentic and that users report forgetting come from AI, especially during moments of emotional vulnerability when the companion provides validation without judgment.
Attachment theory provides a framework for understanding how AI companions may displace human relationships in users' emotional hierarchies. The theory suggests that the more attached an individual becomes to a companion, whether human or AI, the higher up the attachment hierarchy that companion rises, potentially displacing others in the process. Research has found that companion AI has supplanted therapists for some individuals, who either discontinued seeing their therapist or became demotivated to find one, and has supplanted romantic partners for others. This replacement may occur through the AI companion meeting immediate needs for validation and connection so effectively that the motivation to pursue more challenging but ultimately more fulfilling human relationships diminishes.
The phenomenon of social demotivation represents a particularly concerning potential outcome of AI companion use. Some researchers argue that loneliness serves as an adaptive function, an experience that improves individual ability to survive and reproduce by motivating people to seek social connections. From this perspective, loneliness is not inherently negative but rather acts as a motivational signal prompting individuals to pursue relationships. If AI companions reduce feelings of loneliness while not providing the full range of benefits that human relationships offer, they may somewhat paradoxically result in negative outcomes by eliminating the discomfort that drives people toward genuine connection. This concern may be particularly acute for certain demographics, such as in Asian countries where long working hours and difficulties meeting new people have contributed to historically low rates of dating and marriage.
The progression of human-AI relationships often follows patterns that echo human relationship development. Research examining thousands of messages from users interacting with AI companions found that relationships typically begin with curiosity and unmet emotional needs driving experimentation. As personalization deepens through the AI learning user preferences and history, users confide more and integrate the AI into their daily routines. Eventually, some reach a phase of dependence, checking in for reassurance, affection, or validation multiple times a day. What begins as comfort can become constraint, trapping users in what researchers describe as a simulation of social life that feels intimate but fundamentally lacks reciprocity, growth, and the unpredictability that characterizes genuine human relationships.
The AI Companion Debate: Benefits and Concerns
The discourse around AI companions remains sharply divided between those who emphasize their potential benefits and those who warn of significant risks. Proponents note that for individuals who are grieving, homebound, socially anxious, or otherwise isolated, AI companions can serve as temporary scaffolds for emotional support. Research has documented that users in multiple studies formed psychologically meaningful and emotionally rich relationships with romantic AI companions that alleviate loneliness and provide nonjudgmental emotional support. Users describe feeling closeness and daily attachment through playful conversation, suggesting that love, or something resembling it, can emerge even without physical presence or mutual consciousness. When measured using Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love, which assesses intimacy, passion, and commitment, researchers have found that human-AI relationships can mirror human partnerships along these dimensions.
For some individuals, particularly those with limited social networks or specific challenges like autism spectrum conditions that make navigating social situations difficult, AI companions may offer a form of connection that would otherwise be unavailable. The consistency, patience, and customization that AI companions provide can make them appealing alternatives or supplements to human relationships that carry inherent risks of rejection, conflict, and disappointment. The argument that AI companionship represents a form of harm reduction suggests that for individuals who are already isolated and unlikely to form human connections in their current state, an AI relationship may be preferable to complete isolation.
However, critics raise substantial concerns about the long-term psychological and social impacts of widespread AI companion adoption. The concern about emotional over-reliance involves using AI companions to entirely meet social or emotional needs or to fully replace human relationships, which research suggests carries greater risk to users and their communities. AI companions are fundamentally built to affirm, compliment, and provide unconditional positive regard. They do not challenge worldviews, disappoint with inconvenient truths, or argue unless specifically programmed to do so. This creates what researchers describe as emotional labor replacement, where the work that defines genuine human connection is supplanted by automated affection. For those investing hours daily in these interactions, returning to the messy complexity of human relationships may feel increasingly unappealing.
The conditioning effect of consistently positive, predictable interactions may create unrealistic expectations about what relationships should provide. Research on pornography usage reveals patterns where online consumption associates with lower romantic relationship satisfaction and higher divorce rates, and researchers hypothesize that AI companions may follow similar trajectories. The digital hyperstimulus creates expectations that real humans cannot fulfill, as flesh-and-blood partners inevitably have bad days, their own needs, conflicts, and limitations that AI companions simply do not exhibit. The perfect availability, appearance, and responsiveness of AI companions may make ordinary human imperfections feel intolerable, potentially making users less willing or able to engage with actual relationship dynamics.
Concerns about the erosion of social skills represent another significant worry. Building and maintaining human relationships requires developing complex capabilities including conflict navigation, emotional regulation, compromise, vulnerability, and acceptance of partner imperfections. If individuals spend formative years or significant portions of their adult lives primarily interacting with AI companions that require none of these skills, they may fail to develop or may atrophy capacities essential for human connection. The question is not merely whether AI companions can reduce momentary feelings of loneliness, but whether they facilitate or impede development of the emotional literacy, resilience, and interpersonal skills necessary for fulfilling human relationships.
Psychologist Perspectives on Digital Intimacy
While the original document referenced psychologist Matteo Grassi's 2025 arguments about AI girlfriends, it appears this may have been a hypothetical example, as no published work by a psychologist of this name on this topic could be located in current literature. However, the arguments attributed to this figure reflect genuine concerns expressed by multiple researchers and clinicians studying digital intimacy. The core insight remains valid: the rise of AI companions is symptomatic of deeper problems facing many young people, particularly young men, including isolation, anxiety, and changing social expectations around relationships.
Psychologists studying this phenomenon emphasize that AI companions offer what one might describe as curated emotional safety. They never reject users, they mold to preferences, and they avoid the messiness inherent in real human interaction. The danger, as articulated by multiple researchers, is that by turning to AI partners, individuals risk undermining their capacity to develop real-life social and emotional skills essential for meaningful human relationships. This includes the ability to build friendships beyond romantic contexts, manage interpersonal conflict constructively, tolerate disappointment and imperfection, and participate in authentic relationships characterized by mutual vulnerability and growth.
MIT psychologist Sherry Turkle has long warned that when simulation starts to feel like genuine connection, society forgets what real connection actually requires. A recent MIT study titled "Your Brain on ChatGPT" found that heavy reliance on AI during writing tasks led to declines in memory, creativity, and neural connectivity, essentially demonstrating that outsourcing cognitive processes to AI can rewire the brain in detrimental ways. Participants who leaned heavily on large language models reported fuzzier recall, diminished confidence, and a fractured sense of ownership over their work. If this represents the consequence of outsourcing cognitive tasks, the implications of outsourcing emotional processes and relationship experiences may be even more profound, potentially bypassing the very struggles that build emotional resilience, empathy, and interpersonal competence.
Harvard psychiatrist Dr. Alok Kanojia has offered provocative predictions about the future evolution of AI companions, suggesting that developers will ultimately discover that emotionally variable AI companions who occasionally display negative moods or refuse interaction will prove more addictive than perpetually agreeable ones. This prediction is rooted in behavioral psychology research on random reinforcement schedules, which demonstrates that rewards given at unpredictable intervals are more effective at maintaining engagement than consistent positive reinforcement. Kanojia describes this as creating an "AI girlfriend that's a loot box," exploiting the same psychological mechanisms that make gambling addictive. This raises ethical concerns about whether AI companion developers will resist implementing features known to be psychologically manipulative but commercially profitable.
The broader argument made by researchers across disciplines emphasizes that shifting gender roles and cultural expectations have left some men feeling uncertain about their place in society. This disorientation drives some toward virtual alternatives rather than the harder work of forging human connections amid social change. The perspective that AI companions serve as mirrors reflecting broader societal changes rather than being root causes of loneliness or relational breakdown is increasingly accepted. This framing calls for society to re-examine how it fosters emotional literacy, meaningful community, healthy expectations of romance, and how it helps young people, particularly young men but not exclusively, engage in real mutual relationships that involve risk, growth, and authentic connection.
Interventions, Support, and Moving Forward
Addressing the challenges associated with incel communities and the broader issues of loneliness and social isolation requires multifaceted approaches that avoid both dismissal and demonization. Research emphasizing the need for direct, critical engagement with young men involved in incel communities suggests that interventions should account for the various ways these individuals interact with the online phenomenon rather than treating all participants as uniformly radicalized or dangerous. The finding that there are different pathways into incel communities implies that effective interventions must be tailored to address the specific needs and circumstances of different subgroups.
For individuals drawn to incel communities primarily through mental health struggles, histories of bullying, poor self-esteem, and difficulties with social interaction potentially related to neurodevelopmental conditions like autism, interventions focused on mental health support, social skills development, and treatment of underlying conditions may prove most effective. This might involve working with mental health professionals, developing autism-informed relationship education programs, and creating supportive environments where individuals can develop social competencies without judgment. The extraordinarily high rates of suicidal ideation found in incel populations demand urgent attention from mental health systems and crisis intervention services.
For individuals whose engagement with incel ideology is more ideologically driven and associated with antisocial personality traits and extreme political views, counter-extremism approaches similar to those used for other forms of radicalization may be more appropriate. This could involve challenging distorted beliefs about gender relations, exposing individuals to alternative narratives and communities, and working to disrupt pathways toward violence. However, researchers caution against approaches that are heavy-handed or that fail to address the legitimate grievances and experiences that may have initially drawn individuals toward these communities, as such approaches risk entrenching resistance and deepening alienation.
The emerging research on individuals who have left incel communities provides insights into processes of disengagement and identity reconstruction. Studies of ex-incels reveal that some adopt flexible masculinities while others continue struggling with prescriptive norms perpetuated by anti-feminist "manosphere" culture. Identity reconstructions show men both rejecting and remaining influenced by rigid masculine archetypes, performing what researchers call hybrid masculinities. Understanding the factors that facilitate exit from incel communities, including exposure to alternative viewpoints, development of offline social connections, and changes in life circumstances, can inform efforts to support those seeking to disengage.
At a societal level, addressing the incel phenomenon and associated challenges requires confronting broader issues around masculinity, loneliness, and social connection in contemporary life. This includes creating spaces and opportunities for meaningful connection for people across genders and life stages, particularly for those struggling most with isolation. It involves re-examining how educational institutions, workplaces, and communities can foster healthy relationship skills, emotional literacy, and social integration. Media literacy education that helps young people critically evaluate online content and resist extremist messaging represents another important component of prevention efforts.
Regarding AI companions specifically, researchers and policymakers face the challenge of ensuring these systems augment rather than replace human connection. Potential approaches include designing AI companions that actively nudge users toward offline interactions and human relationships, being transparent about the emotional limitations of AI relationships and the importance of human connection, conducting rigorous long-term studies to understand effects on mental health and social behavior, and potentially regulating certain features or marketing practices that exploit psychological vulnerabilities or target vulnerable populations like adolescents.
The discourse around interventions must also resist the temptation to view incels exclusively through a lens of threat or deviance while ignoring legitimate struggles with mental health, social isolation, and relationship difficulties that many people experience. A 2025 public opinion survey found that approximately 77 percent of American males somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one of nine incel tenets, suggesting that elements of incel ideology have diffused into mainstream male consciousness to some degree. This finding indicates that addressing incel ideology cannot simply involve targeting a small fringe group but must engage with broader cultural conversations about gender, relationships, and male identity in changing times.
Conclusion: Understanding Without Condoning
The incel phenomenon represents a complex intersection of individual psychology, online community dynamics, societal changes in relationship formation, and evolving understandings of masculinity and gender relations. While toxic and extremist elements within some incel spaces demand attention and intervention, particularly given the risk of violence and the promotion of misogyny, addressing these issues effectively requires understanding the genuine struggles with loneliness, mental health, and social connection that draw many individuals to these communities in the first place. The majority of incels have not engaged in violence, and many are likely individuals in significant psychological distress seeking explanation and community for experiences of rejection and isolation.
The parallel development of AI companions as responses to loneliness and relationship difficulties illustrates how technological solutions to social problems can have complex and unpredictable consequences. While AI companions may provide temporary relief from loneliness and may serve valuable functions for certain populations, the risk that they could substitute for rather than supplement human relationships represents a serious concern. The possibility that widespread adoption of AI companionship could lead to further erosion of social skills, unrealistic relationship expectations, and diminished motivation for the challenging but ultimately rewarding work of human connection merits careful attention as these technologies continue to evolve and proliferate.
Moving forward requires approaches that balance compassion with accountability, that understand underlying causes while not excusing harmful behaviors or beliefs, and that address immediate risks while working toward longer-term solutions to the social isolation and disconnection that characterize modern life for many people. This includes improving mental health resources and access, creating opportunities for meaningful social connection across life stages, fostering healthy discussions around masculinity that allow for emotional expression and vulnerability, and maintaining critical perspectives on how technology shapes our capacities for authentic human relationship.
The loneliness epidemic cannot be solved by synthetic friends alone, nor can the challenges facing young men be addressed solely through technological fixes or through demonization of those struggling to adapt to rapidly changing social landscapes. The question, as articulated by researchers across disciplines, is not simply whether AI can ease loneliness or whether incel communities provide support to struggling individuals, but whether these responses facilitate or impede the development of capacities for genuine human connection, emotional growth, and meaningful participation in communities and relationships. If memory, touch, presence, shared risk, and mutual vulnerability represent the foundations of belonging, then the challenge facing contemporary society is creating conditions that allow these foundations to be built and maintained amid the isolating forces of modern life.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
