A book on incel

Today something a bit different. A love-shy.com poster “alone99” has written a book on his experience as a 50 year-old incel and a virgin. The book was originally posted on the love-shy.com forums and I’m re-posting it here for more people to read.

I have not yet found time to read all of it but I will and I recommend you to read it.

Oh, and Timothy Draper isn’t his real name.

Virgin territory

Diagnose me, oh Internet “doctors”/hate machines

The Atheist Cult are the most dangerous and deadly group on the planet. They are far worse than any mass murdering statesman ever was for no other group in the history of the world had the goal to exterminate all the decent people. For this, The Atheist Cult are by far the worst of all the groups in human existence. They’re like Stalin x1000. Unless they’re stopped their endgame will be a destruction of every single decent person on the planet.

They will do so in two ways

1. Feminism, which makes decent people incel. This will achieve two goals: a) it will make all decent people unable to reproduce b) it will make the strain of incel destroy many decent people

2. Bearing down the power of the state on decent people This will be achieved by criminalization and pathologization of all views held by decent people. There are already groups pushing for criticism of feminism to be illegal and in the US fields of psychology and psychiatry are almost completely held by liberals who will diagnose all sane, rational people as sick (for liberalism itself is a sickness).

For reasons mentioned in point 2 all TAC members adore psychology and psychiatry, seeing experts working in those areas as virtual gods. Or so it seems when you look at it at first.

However, taking a better look reveals a somewhat different story. I noticed one seemingly peculiar thing. I say seemingly because to me it is no great surprise at all. I know that The Atheist Cult are stupid manure incapable for even basic consistency and reason.

Though The Atheist Cult seem to worship a cult of therapy they don’t respect some very, very basic tenants of fields like psychology and psychiatry – like THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WHO AREN’T EXPERTS CAN’T DIAGNOSE OTHERS or THAT NOBODY, EXPERT OR NOT, CAN DIAGNOSE ONLINE.

Bear in mind, this isn’t name calling like “lunatic”. Some of this are detailed discussion about my potential diagnoses (mostly bullshit personality disorders, but there were people idiotic enough to claim I have schizophrenia) – all from people who aren’t psychiatrists and have never seen me in real life at all..
My question is – what gives you morons the right to do that? You’re not doctors and not even they can diagnose online.

So, why are TAC members doing this? What sense does it make?

Of course, the answer here is very simple – it makes no sense because TAC are fools. They lack any brains, discipline, honesty and any morals. They just like to call names without even thinking about what they’re doing. They are somewhat like a very immoral tribe which sometimes worships its gods and sometimes curses them and uses their names for nefarious purposes.

The goal of this is very simple – to dehumanize a person and nullify his or her words. It doesn’t matter if the person is saying the obvious truth or if even if the idiot making this fake diagnosing isn’t able to comprehend anything the person is saying at all. What matters is brutal, primitive attempt of negation.

My comment policy explicitly forbids diagnosing people on this blog (not to be confused with name calling like “Lunatic” or “Mental patient”, which is still allowed). Monsters doing this aren’t welcome on this blog, nor should they be welcome anywhere in society. They are dangerous and must be eradicated.

All this has a one very important consequence. As much as an year ago I merely disliked such monsters and still considered them people. After a year of witnessing all their filth and hatred I know that they’re not people but hate machines. Their incessant insults and strawmen, coupled with diagnosing I’m talking about here, made me hate them and see them as subhuman. But they are too stupid to understand that this is a consequence of their behavior, their stupidity and violence.

One can feel pity for a human being. TAC aren’t human beings but hate machines and are to be destroyed with no pity.

There can be no talk with TAC. Hate machines can’t talk. They are here to destroy you and will destroy you unless you shoot back.

Wikipedia – reasonable policy or TAC backslash?

Well, speak of the devil.

It seems that Wikipedia’s article on love-shyness has been deleted and there is a discussion on whether the article on incel should be deleted as well !

I am sure that most of you expect me to scream bloody murder right now. I will once again surprise you by not doing that.

Unfortunately, deletion of the article on love-shyness was probably justified. Sure, it sucks, it’s a sort of a setback and it’s not like Wikipedia would be worse off with it but think about what I have to say on this.

Love-shyness is a scientifically unrecognized term outside of Gilmartin’s and Talmer Shockley’s writings. Worse, there was no real research by psychologists and psychiatrists on this outside of Gilmartin’s work and so term itself remained inadequate and reeked of pseudoscience.

The problem isn’t that love-shyness doesn’t exist, all of us with brains know it does. The problem is that it was failed to be properly researched by scientists – something that is not the fault or love-shy or incel people themselves nor any indicator that such a phobia doesn’t exist – of course it exists, and it is very simply and reasonably defined, in addition to a bunch of people talking about having it, and I mean that, EXACTLY THOSE SYMPTOMS AND NOT SOCIAL PHOBIA, everyday on incel communities.

If this were a sane world making progress I’d say – ball is in your court, experts. But it is not and I will make the prediction that worthless leftist academia will never take interest in this. Almost all of US psychiatrists are leftists and there is no way for them to talk about this openly. This has to do with what I’ll say next.

Let’s say there are (very) roughly four kinds of people in the world – smart ones, TAC, people stupid for other reasons than TAC and those somewhere in-between smart and dumb. Of course, this categorization is extremely crude and done completely ad hoc but read on. So, which of these four groups would be convinced that love-shyness is an actual problem based on nothing but a Wikipedia article, which says that one guy made up the term? I’d say a very small percentage of the fourth group, and I mean those much closer to stupidity. Intelligent people will understand that the definition of the problem itself means that it must exist and TAC or other dumb people… Well, they will remain dumb.

Deletion of the article on love-shyness subtracts nothing from the reality of the problem that millions of men and women are feeling nor does it subtract any of its theoretical and practical value. Those who don’t understand that are wasting our time.

As for the article on incel, well, that’s a different story. Frankly, I am disgusted by this happening. People discussing this on a talk page whose I link I provided above show either the usual ignorance. There are people describing incel as some sort of “wannabe mental disorder” (it is not) or comparing incel to lack of much less essential things in life and these types seem to be in favor of deletion. Other are just lacking the proper perspective of how much the term is used in both studies and groups of people so they propose merging it with another article.

Of course I had to throw in my two cents and say

Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Wikipedia so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that’s another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon – there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon – what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.

At the same time I’ve noticed that Wikipedia’s article on Brian Gilmartin was also considerably shrunk, supposedly mostly for uncited claims.

Now, all of this could just be a coincidence, revival of my blog and start of educational articles on it just happening simultaneously with Wikipedia cleaning its content to improve itself in the new year. I’d say I’m almost convinced that this is the case. I know that Wikipedia employs rigorous standards and that you can’t just close something you don’t like.

But what if there is more to this? What is this is actually an orchestrated attack, almost certainly not related to what’s been going on lately on my blog, but a kind of a backslash against topics of incel/love-shyness that’s been preparing for a while and is influenced by, among many things, my blog?
There are hundreds of millions of TAC members. It is safe to assume that not all of them write insane articles for cesspools like RationalWiki or GeekFeminism. Incel is a hated, despised topic and I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody did want to inflict harm to our cause. After all, Wikipedia had not been immune from such accusations at least once and TAC is just like any other malignant cancer – it wants to spread everywhere.

I don’t think that the harm will be too horrific even if the article on incel goes away too but you have to understand TAC – they are violent and simple-minded enough to consider a deletion of just one of these articles a victory and some kind of proof that what me and other love-shy and incel people are talking about are just fairies and flying spaghetti-monsters, despite facts obvious to a rapidly declining number of sane people.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m completely deluded.

What do you think?

A new comments policy

I often hear that incel is actually natural selection of people unfit to reproduce. If we are to believe that this is true while simultaneously believing intelligence is one of positive human traits, which should be looked for when it comes to sexual selection, it seems that there is something very wrong with Mother Nature these days.

At least that is what I think when reading some of the comments I get.

When starting this blog I was enthusiastic about free speech I’d allow here, especially in contrast to so many online places where free speech is just an empty proclamation or is even explicitly forbidden (which has the benefit of being a more honest approach).

I soon learned that I was very naive. Imagine taking an enormous chalkboard and placing in a public place with the intention of allowing people to write everything they want to on it. Most people will scribble moderate content. A much smaller number will write brilliant texts. But there will also be those who will vomit and defecate on the chalkboard. As hundreds of posts that were nothing but vomit and shit had to be deleted from this blog I realized that free speech a double-edged-sword. While essentially a good thing  not only can it be deliberately abused but it can also create harm if idiots and lunatics use it, despite them lacking premeditation to do such harm.

Since my first comment policy was written before I started getting replies it couldn’t cover everything that was to happen once comments started rolling in and it soon became obsolete.

So, here is the new, re-written comments policy.

All these rules have already been enforced many months before but I owe my readers and commentators clearly written out rules.

As I’m sure you’ll notice, these rules prevent only the most rude, irrational and weaselly behavior while allowing for disagreement.  It doesn’t allow for things almost any site doesn’t and beyond that doesn’t allow dumbest TAC nonsense like denying that incel or love-shyness exist (which is impossible just according to their definitions).

If there are any suggestions I’d like to read them.

TAC fascists are prevented from censorship – at least when it comes to this blog … and something about the future of my writing

This is just a quick post on something I read today.

It seems that a WordPress employee is threatening to delete content which incites violence . This didn’t seem to worrying, as threats and incitements to violence are against WordPress Terms of Service. However, since the tweet itself was talking about Chateau Hartiste I went to his blog to check out if there was an article about it. There was.

However, I wasn’t planning to make a blog post on this subject, as none of the two articles seemed to indicate that this person was threatening to remove blogs he doesn’t like. And then I saw this


It’s right there in the first comment and it is frightening, especially after you see was the content of the blog was on his current site.

After reading that comment I took steps to back up all the important articles I made. I didn’t back up some of the personal stuff but everything else is safe now.

Though some Tumblr feminists are the only ones I know of who did try to shut down this blog I suspect that there were others too. In any case, this blog is hated by many, and specifically hated by TAC scum (as is everything that has to do with incel), and until now its termination would had resulted in loss of so much valuable material. This has now been prevented.

That being said, I often wonder about technical aspects of this blog. I am a poor, unemployed man living outside of USA. I can’t even pay to have a full website. I don’t know anything about running a website. I hardly manage this blog despite it being free. My only weapon is my writing. But there are more and more of us blogging about incel and related issues, as you can see by the blogs I’m following. Once we gain more strength I can see a website coming up. I myself will try to upload this blog to a site this year.

Love-shyness 3 – thoughts and conclusions

Required reading to understand this post better:

What is love-shyness?

Love-shyness 1- my experience with love-shyness

Love-shyness 2- resources about love-shyness

This post will be a the final one of my series on love-shyness. I will try to make some final conclusions about love-shyness.


It is sad I even have to point this out. Pointing out that love-shyness exists would be as unnecessary as pointing out that any other phobia exists, or, for that matter, that cats or chairs exists – if we were living in a sane world. Unfortunately, we are not. We are living in a world where a certain fascist cancer is spreading its lunacy as an unquestionable dogma.

So, when somebody tells you that love-shyness doesn’t exist because such a term isn’t in the DSM just try to remember what they are actually denying – they are denying that there are people who are unable to approach a member of the opposite sex with romantic intent, even in the case of knowing that the result will not be a rejection, that there are people unable to make romantic/sexual initiative towards a person they know without that person doing anything like that first, even in the case of knowing that the result will not be a rejection and that there are people unable to reciprocate romantic/sexual interest of others, ie often afraid to reciprocate indicators of interest.

A sane person knows that discussing with people who seriously make this claim is a waste of time. They are lunatics.


The diagnostic criteria for 300.29 Specific Phobias as outlined by the DSM-IV-TR are:

1. Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g., flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood).

2. Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.

3. The person recognizes that the fear is excessive or unreasonable.

4. The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.

5. The avoidance, anxious anticipation or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person’s normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.

6. In individuals under the age of 18, the duration is at least 6 months.

7.The anxiety, panic attack, or phobic avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (e.g., fear of dirt in someone with an obsession about contamination), posttraumatic stress disorder (e.g., avoidance of stimuli associated with a severe stressor), separation anxiety disorder (e.g., avoidance of school), social phobia (e.g., avoidance of social situations because of fear of embarrassment), panic disorder with agoraphobia, or agoraphobia without history of panic disorder.

Love-shyness obviously fits all the criteria.

1. The fear is obviously excessive and unreasonable as there is nothing very dangerous about doing things love-shyness prevents you from doing. It is triggered by specific situations.

2. Everybody who experienced love-shyness knew that they were so terrified of approaching or expressing interest that just thinking about it was impossible.

3. I never met a love-shy person who claimed that his or her fear is somehow justified. They all know it’s an irrational impulse.

4. If some of these men and women had to approach potential partners under gunpoint many would still not be able to do it or pass out of fear.

5.Being young and love-shy is a disaster, especially for males. It makes it unlikely that they will ever have a relationship or sex. Love-shyness is one of the major causes of incel, which itself causes enough distress.

6. Love-shyness almost always starts in early teenage years as teenagers began to be interested in the opposite sex.

7. I think there are very good arguments to claim that love-shyness is a specific phobia, which I will describe in the next part.


There are those who claim that love-shyness is merely social phobia. Such people, if I can even call them that, are just slightly less insane than those described in my first section.

There are usually two types of such people.

The first types are almost as brain dead as the first section types who just straight out deny that it exists and don’t want to listen to any arguments. Anyway, the this type of lunatics believe that love-shyness is just social phobia and don’t want to argue any further.

The second type of lunatics will try to argue their idea a bit and say that love-shyness is social phobia as it somehow deals with, you know… people.
I took a look at the list of phobias and found that there are different names for phobias of two numbers (!!). Yet this should somehow be the same thing? LOVE-SHYNESS IS MUCH MORE NARROW THAN A SOCIAL PHOBIA, and I explicitly make this distinction by saying

Inability to

1. Talk to members of the opposite sex when not taking romantic/sexual initiative without being horribly anxious
2. Make initiative to get to know better a member of the opposite sex they already met without romantic/sexual intention
3. Make a cold approach to a member of the opposite sex without romantic/sexual intention

are not signs of love-shyness but social phobia.


I really explained most of this in previous parts. It is an utter shame that something like this isn’t in the DSM. The reasons why it isn’t are somewhat complex but amount to the huge stigma around this problem, the fact that psychiatry is mostly bullshit and the fact that shrinks themselves were probably never love-shy.

Of course that it shouldn’t go there under the name “love-shyness” but some kind of specific romantic phobia but it should definitely be there.


I believe that love-shyness affects men and women equally. However, this doesn’t mean that they will have the same experience and prognosis with their love-shyness. Despite what the delusional TAC idiots will tell you men are the ones expected to initiate things in this culture. And this exactly the reason why it will be easier for women to beat love-shyness, as their chances of the other side taking the initiative are much higher. If a woman is somewhat socialized, doesn’t look terrible and isn’t picky she has to be extremely love-shy, to the point of inability to reciprocate any advances, for love-shyness to be her long-term problem.
These are facts.


Unless you are an extremely rich and attractive man, which will make women chase you, love-shyness is a good indicator against against you having a girlfriend or sexual experiences, possibly ever. Point 5 explains why it usually isn’t like that for women.
It will make you incel since your teens and you will suffer a lot. There’s no getting around that. While there is always a chance for a miracle expect to suffer for a long time. This isn’t a phobia of spiders or some shit you need to avoid – this is a phobia that makes you scared of essential things. It will endanger your health. There is one general rule about this whole entire thing – the longer you’re incel the harder it is to beat it. And we all know that incel kills.
The 50 year-old man I’m talking about in this post had been love-shy all of his life until he turned 50 he could finally take it no more.


I am saying almost certainly for one reason only – I don’t know about any experiences with CBT and love-shyness. Theoretically it is possible that CBT can help in some cases. However, even in the unlikely case that it would help some people, I am quite unconvinced that it would help as efficiently as some other, better methods that have been proposed.

As for any other form of therapy or drugs it is certainly a pure waste of time if you want to treat love-shyness. You can’t talk your way out of this nor can you change this with anti-depressants or other medicine.


Brian Gilmartin, who I mentioned in previous articles on love-shyness mentioned practice dating as a way of dealing with this phobia.

This was my idea

Program for treating love-shyness

Due to their phobia, love-shy males can’t be treated as pure incel males. In order for them to be cured their erotophobia must be defeated. To achieve this goal women, all of whom would freely apply and be paid for it, would teach these men how to cuddle and kiss – which, to most of them, would be their first experience of these things. In the end, once their phobia has receded, there would be an option of these women sleeping with them, but only if both parties agree. If any of these males refuse to have their first time that way their wishes would be respected. Also, if a woman who had been this man’s dating coach for some reason refuses to sleep with him her wish should be respected and some other woman in the program should sleep with him.
This program would eliminate love-shyness. After it is completed formerly love-shy participants could join a program for incels or try meeting women on their own.


We are living in an idiocracy and barbarism. Scientists are mostly leftist scum whose religion doesn’t allow them to deal with these issues. Most of psychiatry is a hoax.
Even if this problem were to be recognized one day tax payers this doesn’t mean that it will be dealt with any better than it is now. Whoever thinks that the government will do something about this is wrong.


Love-shyness can be beaten. If I were able to talk to myself at 15 I think I’d scare the kid so much by merely telling him what will happen if he doesn’t get over this phobia that he’d be more frightened of not getting over it than the phobia itself.
The disaster which befell me was just a re-run of many similar tragic destinies of anonymous broken men, some of which are described in Gilmartin’s book. Anybody who doesn’t beat this might suffer the similar fate.

Your fear is not real. Oh, I know it is very real for you. But you just have to do it. You have to feel the fear and do it anyway. I don’t care if you will shake, puke, sweat or cry. Do it anyway. It’s extremely unlikely that somebody else will do it for you. And unless you do it you’re in big, big trouble. Every day you’re living with this fear means you’re one day closer to doom.


If you read all three of these texts you should by now be somewhat aware of the problem. Please, help your love-shy family and friends.
Children, especially male chilren, are especially important because they’re the most vulnerable ones and their problem has the best chance of being solved. I proposed The Prostitute Scam for parents of love-shy male children.
In this scam they would hire a prostitute to live as a tenant and pretend to seduce the teenager. It is crucial that this happens as early as first signs of interest in girls and love-shyness can be recognized.


Love-shyness is a serious, dangerous phobia. If it isn’t dealt with it will probably ruin the person’s life. Unless you have respect and understanding for these facts you are not a human being but a hate machine.

If you ever ask yourself if my views on what I call TAC are correct or not ask yourself what an average “compassionate”, bleeding heart, social justice crusader thinks about this devastating malady. Only then will you understand how necessary it is to eradicate all liberals.

And with this ends my serial on love-shyness.

Dedicated to
JM (1963-2013),
a victim of love-shyness
and all other victims of love-shyness
May they know peace