Creepy comment of the day: If men can’t get “the steady love and wild sex of a valuable young girl,” naturally they’ll start shooting people.
Banana slug: A better role model for horny humans than bonobos?
Sometimes I hunt the misogyny, sometimes it wanders up right up to me and says hello.
Today’s post is an example of the latter. Below, a slightly edited comment that someone left for me this morning. It’s a response to a post of mine about a dreadful post on Return of Kings in which a fellow calling himself Billy Chubbs argued, with absolutely no evidence, that a recent high school shooter was driven to murder because of his “probable sexual frustration,” Chubbs went on to argue that young women are “selfish” because they don’t have sex with guys they’re not attracted to.
Anyway, my new commenter – posting under the name “whogoesthere?” – thinks that I and the other commenters here were being too hard on Chubbs’ “very good argument.” And so he deposited this giant rant, which in many ways is even scarier than Chubbs’ original.
He’s a tad verbose, so I’ve trimmed out some stuff that isn’t relevant to his general, er, thesis. And I’ve also taken the liberty of adding a few paragraph breaks and bolding a few of the best (i.e. worst) bits.
When men don’t get the women they want they turn to violence.
Not a good start here, because this just isn’t true. In this case, the phrase “not all men” is, for once, appropriate. Most men don’t get violent when they’re turned down.
This is established all over the animal kingdom and offers a good example about how it applies to humans, that snotty girls who keep their sexual treasures to all but a few males cause the remaining males to snap. …
Animals do all sorts of things that humans don’t do, and we can’t always learn from their behavior or assume that it relates to our own lives.
Or maybe the Evo Psych crew is just looking at the wrong animals. When banana slugs can’t find a partner to have sex with, they simply fertilize themselves. There’s a lesson here, I think, for the angry incels of the world: you can’t always get what you want, and when you can’t, sex with yourself is better than murder.
High school is a massively sexually charged winner take all environment. … Today’s high school is basically an ongoing audition for a porno video and the guys and girls who don’t make the cut can only sit at home and masturbate.
wat
It’s demeaning and hits a major blow to a person’s sexual identity to not be invited to frolic with the beautiful people.
Somehow most people, regardless of gender, manage to survive even if they’re not frolicking with Charlize Theron and/or Channing Tatum.
I’m sorry but almost no men go on wild shooting rampages if they have a beautiful female in their keep.
In their keep?! Also, no. Charles Manson was surrounded by beautiful young women. Yet he orchestrated multiple grisly murders.
The only guys that do so are bank robbers and thieves, generally guys at a later stage of life more fixated on money.
wat
Human beings naturally assess the amount of sex going around them and judge themselves in relationship to the amount and type of sex others are getting.
You know, you can’t actually tell how much and what kind of sex someone is having just by looking at them. Yes, there will always be people in the world having more sex with you. And some of these people are having sex with people you would probably like to have sex with. There are also people who are smarter than you, funnier than you, who can play chess or kickbox better than you, who have hundreds or thousands of times more money than you do.
That’s life. Life isn’t fair.
This makes sense because from a reproductive standpoint sex is coveted, and sex with beautiful thin, young women are the most coveted. Being the first to spoil these young women sexually is viewed reproductively as a guarantee of parentage, thus this is why males instinctively covet and burn with passion for these females.
Ah, yes, it was only a matter of time until the creepy pedo-justifying Evo Psych assfacts made their appearance. Not all men “burn with passion” in their pants for virginal high school girls.
This is why we have “morality” which is in its essence is a promise not to flaunt or indulge in sex moreso than the lowest man or woman in your tribe. This is what is meant when people say “morality went out the window.” They mean someone with more sexual prowess is openly indulging in sex and broadcasting it to stimulate the jealousy of the underclasses.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what people mean when they say “morality went out the window.”
This teen killed people cause he thought that beautiful girls were out of reach. The high school environment merely rubbed it in his face. Yes drugs to treat ADD might’ve eroded many of the impulse control functions in the teen, but the rage against the high school was still the gasoline.
[citation needed]
He might’ve had a picture or two taken with a girl next to him, but oftentimes those high school girls lie and simply eat up the male’s offerings without granting sexual access, but grant it to a random stud.
How dare young women choose who to have sex with, and who not to!
I’m not saying the girl he killed deserved it, it’s only that when you are in that frame of mind you cannot tell who is having more sex than others and you simply fill in the gaps with rage.
Wait, so if she had turned him down he would have been justified in killing her?
The beautiful girl simply represented everything that the teen couldn’t get. The steady love and wild sex of a valuable young girl.
Yeah, I think you’re confusing high school with porn again. His rampage lasted roughly a minute and a half. He shot her because she was there.
All the other theories posted on this site seem comical, self-righteous and weirdly off-point. It’s like you’re assessing the situation as an asexual senior citizen or righteous prude.
Not a lot of “prudes” here. Just people who find the “women need to have sex with ‘nice guys’ or these ‘nice gys’ will kill you all” to be a somewhat problematic argument.
Generally men want sex with young thin beauties who validate their existence.
Some men do. But most men, among those who are sexually attracted to women, aren’t as neurotically fixated on this small slice of the female demographic – women in their teens and early twenties who are somehow both virginal and sexually “wild” – as manosphere men seem to be. And most people don’t base their entire self-worth on whether or not they’re having sex with beautiful people.
Some men prefer women older than them. Some like women who are fat. Plenty of men don’t fixate on a particular physical type and are attracted to all sorts of different women. Believe it or not, whogoesthere, there are lots of men who are more interested in what’s in a woman’s head than they are in whether or not she matches up with some particular checklist of physical attributes.
If society removes all of the social pathways to attaining such a beauty, such as making prostitution illegal, increasing shame for men who seek sex, rewarding females and males called manginas who identify and mock the sex seekers and so on… this will lead to depression in men and all of the behaviors surrounding it, including shootings. Sounds pretty much like a logical line of reasoning to me.
And that’s the problem. It’s not actually a logical line of reasoning at all. It’s more like a sort of blackmail.
Men don’t kill women because they can’t have “the steady love and wild sex of a valuable young girl.” Sometimes men kill women because they feel entitled to have sex with these “valuable young girls” and become bitter and enraged when they can’t find a “valuable young girl” who agrees with them on this particular point.
It’s not the lack of “sexual access” that’s the problem. It’s the notion that your desire for “sexual access” means more than the right of that person to say “no.” It’s the notion that society has done you wrong because you can’t (at least at the moment) get laid. It’s the idea that your desire to have sex with a particular kind of woman somehow trumps the right of other people to live.
I mean, what the fucking fuck.
Oh, by the way, there’s no evidence that the shooter in question – Karl Halverson Pierson – was motivated by sexual frustration. His intended target was the school librarian, who is also the school’s debate coach. Pierson was obsessed with debate, and had some sort of grudge against the coach.
Posted on June 22, 2014, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 2,219 Comments.
Hey David, I was wondering if you saw this post about you from the red pill reddit yet?
http://theantifeminist.com/monsterboobz-david-futrelle-disturbing-defence-film-sexual-abuse-torture-children/
I forgot to mention they referred to that as “the latest futrelle scandal”. LOL!
He gives the game away with “valuable young girl.” It has nothing to do with evolution or reproductive fitness or whatever. It’s about claiming the shiniest prize to show off to other dudes. “Neener neener, I got to this one before any of you did!” Pure and absolute objectification.
before I make a terrible terrible mistake…
Please try to keep this in mind when your partner says “eat me”
“Who Goes There” is the title of the story “The Thing” is based on. I think he’s trying to tell us he’s an psychopathic alien.
Liveandletlive, ugh, that guy just blatantly makes shit up. The movie in question is considered a classic. It’s not porn or torture porn. It’s on Netflix. I wrote about a censorship controversy involving it. I didn’t offer an assessment of the film itself. And all the other shit about me in there is made up as well, based on misreadings and misrepresentations of other things I wrote 20 years ago.
I’ve mostly been ignoring him. He’s basically a political pedophile — sorry, ephebophile — whose main issue seems to be how allegedly unfair age of consent laws are.
Dave, he even describes it as “quote-mining”.. I don’t think the English language is what he has a firm grip on.
Has that dude heard of special effects? And why doesn’t he go after the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes as well: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/salo/
Gosh, looks like it’s only a “pick on David” hit piece. Sadly, it’s incredibly contrived. This reviewer gives the hit piece 1/10 and says “not worth the minutes to read, of which you will want all of them back.”
If I never see the Carpenter version of that film again it’ll be too soon. ::shudder::
Then why is he criticizing you for supposedly defending the abuse of boys?
Is his position that adult men + teenage girls = good
adults + teenage boys = bad?
I don’t get it.
kittehserf: my favourite film version! A friend of mine once suggested that my tagliune should be from that movie – “Whatever it is, it’s weird and pissed off”
weirwoodtreehugger: I don’t even try to figure out how many contradictory positions they hold simultaneously. It’s like the hamsters in the wheel they call a mind have rabies.
takshak, LOL!
I saw that film when I was 18. Only sat through it ‘cos I’d paid (and that was at student rates, too). I don’t think I’d find it so frightening now – just as repellent, though – but I’ve long since gone off horror movies of any sort anyhow.
“When men don’t get the women they want they turn to violence.”
That’s awful to think about yourself and the rest of men.
“This is established all over the animal kingdom and offers a good example about how it applies to humans,”
But humans aren’t animals. They’re completely different. Last I check, women should be with whoever they want because they’re human.
“It’s demeaning and hits a major blow to a person’s sexual identity to not be invited to frolic with the beautiful people.I’m sorry but almost no men go on wild shooting rampages if they have a beautiful female in their keep.”
Keep??? And yeah no matter if they do have a girl or not, they’re still gonna to commit crimes because of certain reasons.
“Human beings naturally assess the amount of sex going around them and judge themselves in relationship to the amount and type of sex others are getting.”
No, that’s just you and other people who seem to think that they have no worth in themselves at all so they use sex to make themselves feel better. Most people value themselves.
I’m not doing anymore, the rest is just entitlement, rape apologia and contradicting.
Aren’t sex bots gonna to be VERY expensive? I doubt they would be seen as ‘disposable’ then.
Brittersweet
What an adorable fur ball with legs!
Sorry not rape apologia I mean justifying the shootings.
To these confused boys:
If all the boys only go after the few beautiful girls, naturally there will be an imbalance. Forget about beauty if you feel a need for sex that badly, in this case so badly that you are thinking about violence. Find a girl who, like you, is interested in having sex. Then you just have to persuade her that you are a good choice.
And remember that unattractive girls are much easier to approach than beautiful ones!
kittehserf: I walked out of the $2 showing of “Eraserhead”, the dancing chipmunks were the last aesthetic straw.
The Thing is not really about the monster, it’s about how panic & suspicion make people dangerous.
@takshak: Please try to keep this in mind when your partner says “eat me”
My wife has learned to clarify quickly whenever she asks “Can I have a bite?”
Way to miss the point there dratman
takshak – Eraserhead’s another one I never saw. Dancing chipmunks? Strewth.
I think I’d sooner watch the 1951 film – more fear and paranoia, less gore filling the screen. Also James Arness was the monster, before he got all famous in Gunsmoke. :)
fruitloopsie – oh, it’s rape apologia, all right. “Fuck us or else we’ll kill you and we’ll be totally justified in doing so” is all about rape.
dratman you’re gross
Argh, I have to go sit down on the couch for a bit. My knees and hips are staging an organised protest against being on the computer chair. Later!
Why is it that anti-feminists have lower expectations of what men are capable of than feminists? Feminists and pro-feminists believe men are capable of NOT RAPING and NOT MURDERING if they aren’t getting constant sex. Anti-feminists apparently have trouble with this concept. And yet I bet this same slice of the manosphere was ringing with echoes of “not all men!” a couple of months ago.
So far as I can tell, the biggest problem with the incels is they think life should be like a porn movie – a specific standard of beauty, minimal interaction before sex, women’s desire being aboslutely irrelevant, man’s desire being enough reason for sex to occur, sex being about power of the man and degradation of the woman as much as it is about pleasure – and when reality doesn’t resemble said movies they think that’s an indication that something is wrong with reality (and women in particular), not that there’s something wrong with the porn.
The self-pity elevating to self-destruction and taking others with you is a disturbing element. that needs to stop, but sadly most likely won’t as long as people keep divorcing these events from the fucked-up beliefs of the perpetrators.
Why do they elide over the fact that in the majority of ‘in the animal world!’ lack-of-mate situations, the males usually kill the excess males. I mean, if they’re really serious about that…
But really, let’s just randomly pick something to mimic – they have, so I will. How about those ruffs – birds that have a bisexual male with a big territory, a little satellite male who rotates around the edge to mate-steal, and faeder males who mimic being female, including sexually and who solicit the territorials as well as the females.
And everyone’s pretty much happy. Yep. Everyone’s a Ruff.
This guy clearly has an unhealthy and antiquated idea about virginity and youth. I’ll give you that. But the notion that the current dating market could result in serious frustration for men is not without merit.
True, most will not go on a murder spree, as basic human empathy and self preservation simply, won’t allow it. But many will engage in other, more self-destructive behaviors, such as the current trend for young men to completely lack ambition, filling their lives with pot, porn and video games.
So, what’s wrong with the current dating market? Nothing, objectively. The ongoing legal and social liberation of women has resulted in great things for the economy, science and the arts. However, a natural consequence of this liberation is that women no longer necessarily require men for financial security and many stigmas associated with sexual promiscuity are disappearing. Thus, women are free to select their sexual partners on a basis of pure sexual attraction.
The “unfair” aspects of the dating scene arise from this. Still beholden to old ideologies, as we all are, financial success is still very important to female attraction, and the opposite tends not to be true for men. Additionally, men still must approach. So, any socially active women will have a wide array of suitors from which to choose to pair off with. As a result, averagely attractive men with average careers must settle for below average attractive women. An above average male can be with an average female. While the opposite is true for women, and so on. Women from average on up are also free to engage in sex with multiple partners they find attractive in a relatively short span of time, if they choose. This is something only the most attractive or successful men can ever achieve.
Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe that sane gun control measures and a more public and disciplined approach to mental health would do much more to hinder shooting sprees than addressing this frustration, but I do believe this frustration should be assessed because it is resulting in aggrieved young men susceptible to manosphere and even racist garbage, and these men will stand in the way of progress. You can’t expect frustrated individuals to be willing participants in the project of progressive modernity. I believe the best way to address this issue is legalizing prostitution along the same lines as Germany. That way, these men can regularly experience sex with women they find decently attractive and will be much more beholden to society.
I’ll take pseudointellectualism for 500, Alex.
Setting aside that all the premises in that wall o’ text are complete piffle, you really trip over your own feet right here:
Sentence 1: The partner’s wealth is important to women but not men.
Sentence 2: Men must approach women.
Sentence 3: Therefore, women have more choices than men.
Do you see how the premises don’t lead to the conclusion? If women are pickier than men (sentence 1), then women have fewer choices (or fewer acceptable choices). If men must approach women and not vice versa (sentence 2), then men can choose any woman they see, whereas women can only choose from the men who approach them, so women have fewer choices.
And none of your hand-waving has addressed the basic problem: If there are an equal number of straight men and straight women and they all want partners, how can one gender have a better selection than the other?
Citation needed.
@undfreeland:
That’s such a mess of bass-ackwards ideas. Let’s start with this “economics of the dating game” bullshit I keep hearing about. Yeah, I’d forgotten how every straight man and every straight woman has identical ideas of what constitutes attractiveness, so the “market” thing is totally an apt analogy. For fuck’s sake, your crap about “above average” and “below average” makes it sound like you’re talking about house prices in an area, not PEOPLE.
And for what it’s worth, it might be easier for your “frustrated men” to not turn off women if they stop thinking of them as interchangeable commodities. If all you care about is something moist and warm to put your appendages in, go buy an apple pie. If you actually treat women as individuals who have their own thoughts, feelings, free will and desires, you might stop resenting them for actually having some control over who they choose to befriend, kiss, fuck or fall in love with. After all, isn’t that exactly what you’re saying you want?
If you stopped thinking about it in such restrictive terms you might realise there’s more to attractiveness than a number out of 10 based on a specific beauty standard.
Where the fuck is my array of suitors? My only suitor dumped me because he didn’t want to settle for me.
Oh but katz, don’t you know how awful it is for men to have to risk the pain of rejection, or settle for somebody who is less than their ideal of physical attractiveness? Because literally NO WOMAN has EVER had to do that. [/sarcasm]
Don’t these guys realise that the sexual revolution was arguing for equality in the sexes precisely to take the stigma away from women making the first move, sex being seen as shameful, rigid norms of dating, etc? Also I’m sensing an undercurrent of “all women are gold-diggers!” to all the stuff about women seeking men who are financially secure.
Can I have a stack of suitors rather than an array?
A bushel of suitors, perhaps?
*snort* a murder of suitors?/black humour sorry
Oh, maybe the suitors can slot into a rack, like servers?
Would they be hot-swappable? :D
A heap? A queue? A hash table?
You know what irks me the most about these idiots? It’s the very idea that women are inherently vindictive and manipulative. There is never any sense that these young women are also young and naive and are unaware that men are thinking the things they’re thinking. It’s like they think that women are born with the innate knowledge that men want to fuck them all the time and that girls and women automatically use that to their advantage.
There’s this automatic assumption that women are just using them and being manipulative, when ‘god-forbid’ they are completely unaware that the only reason the guy they thought was their friend is acting that way is because he wants sex.
It’s as if young women are not allowed to be naive; not allowed to see young men as friends; not allowed to have an intimate relationship with a guy without expecting anything in return.
Believe me when I tell you that there is a huge amount of angst (and loss of innocence) that comes with the realisation that the person you thought was your friend turns out to be someone who was just being nice to get into your pants, and who now actively despises you because you happened to be naive about your friendship with that person. Not only does the young woman have to deal with the fact that her treasured friend only ever really ever saw the friendship as a precursor to sex, but she now has to deal with the loss of that friendship, and in many cases, the anger and resentment of that person directed at her simply for daring to be naive….or trusting.
Do these cretins ever think for a second about how psychologically damaging that is for young women? And that perhaps that has something to do with why women create buffers when they meet men to ‘hopefully’ ensure that guy won’t get the wrong idea?
It’s not that women think they’re so unbelievably attractive that every guy wants to have sex with them, it’s that women have to establish boundaries with their ‘non-romantic’ male relationships to insulate themselves from the potential of that kind of trauma…and it is trauma.
I think an ostentation of suitors would be good. It makes sense because that’s the name of a group of peacocks and male peacocks work hard to impress the laydeez.
Well-put, Leisha. I’ve wondered why a lot of my female friends will drop the word “boyfriend” into the first five minutes of conversation with a new person. I didn’t realise until I was doing some reading that it’s effectively a defensive thing – even if they’re only having a friendly discussion, some guys will still get all butthurt if for some reason they entertain the notion that they have a chance at getting into a woman’s pants, only to learn later that she’s “taken”. The thought that she just simply might want to strike up a friendship and nothing more isn’t even regarded as a reasonable option by some men. :/
marinemichel, my first ‘suitor’ turned out to be gay! Funnily enough, I’ve been having these weird dreams lately of us being intimate again…why I don’t know…he really doesn’t do it for me anymore??
The only other suitor I ever had after my first failed attempt, I married. Thus ends my sordid sexual history! Pretty sad really…LOL!
strivingally, it’s so true, I always mention my husband within the first few minutes of meeting a new guy. It’s not because I think he is having those thoughts, or that he wants me so-to-speak, it’s just about creating that buffer. It sucks that men and women can’t relate to each other better :-)
But never for women, amirite?
So it’s unfair that women aren’t all driven by economic necessity to allow men to fuck them these days? Ever considered that it was grotesquely wrong that we ever were?
Bullshit. Ever heard of socially active women who don’t happen to fit the very narrow definitions of what’s conventionally attractive?
Oh yes, because it’s men who get slut-shamed if they do, men who are risking their safety and their lives in casual sex.
You could always try teaching children from infancy that women are not things, we are people, and nobody is entitled to anybody, full stop.
Because there are no problems with the situation in Germany or anywhere else sex work is legal, nooooo. Because, apart from anything else, there are no men in any of those countries whose sense of entitlement prompts them to refuse to pay for sex at the very least, or to abuse women, sex workers or not.
@thread: surely it’s a wardrobe of suitors? That way you can keep ‘em on coat hangers.
This is the 21st century for pity’s sake. It’s not like 1950 when all anyone had was a handful of radio stations, fewer tv channels plus their local newspaper and, with a little bit of luck, the Reader’s Digest for a bit of serious reading. Back then, it was more or less taken for granted that people had limited access to information and opinions other than those dominating the place where they lived.
If those ideas and concepts are all you are seeing in the media, that’s entirely your choice of media. There’s an incredible variety of points of view, news sources, opinions offered. If all you’re getting is what you’re describing, you’re indoctrinating yourself by choosing media that repeats and reinforces what your witless, inexperienced, high school minded mates are telling you rather than finding other voices with other views to offer.
I think, given how the troll views dating, it could be a plague of suitors.
Leisha, strivingally – yep, me too, with mentioning my husband quick-smart.
Oh, and the “taken” – years ago a taxi driver creeping on me actually used that word. He asked if I’d go out with him, I said no, and his response was “Why? Are you taken?” I said “No, I’m just not giving.” Fortunately he shut up after that. Don’t know if reporting him would have done any good (not that I thought of it in time) – this was the early 90s and I doubt the company would have given a damn.
Shaun, a plague of suitors, I love it!
“Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.”
Are you for real? The unattainable beauty standard set for women is frustrating *for men*?!? That’s your concern?
This looks like a fun game. I want to play.
————–
*Ahem*
Whaaai indeed, I do declare that the objectively faultless situation we find ourselves in may yet, a priori, be possessing of certain impurities that mar the otherwise impeccable facade of perfection that we, blessed collective of individuals, find ourselves participating and thus prevaricating in.
You see, my dear assembly, it is simply a fact, a fact of nature that all men desire sex and that the glue, the spermal bond with society is the ejaculation of the male penis. Without this incentive, a man simply refuses to pay any attention to larger social organizations. Thus, forthwith and so on, etcetera, if we legalize prostitution the on-going spermal bonding of men to an eligible female of the species will ensure a viable level of social cohesion and trust, creating a feedback loop of incentive derived gratitude debt towards the larger social structures that allow these otherwise frustrated men the pleasure of using a female as the vessel for their orgasm.
—
This game turned out to not be much fun at all.
: (
But I love this.
We live in a society that teaches men that beautiful women are what they need for validation
(a)
while presenting unreachable beauty standards, presumably for women
(b)
and this results in
(c) = frustrated men.
I mean that’s beautiful. It’s a sentence that manages not to relate to itself at all, yet still somehow turn men into the victims of female beauty commodification!
Well, Shaun, you know the worst thing in the history of the world in space is for a young man to have a sad boner because the women he sees are just not beautiful enough for him to fuck.
What is it about this topic that attracts really long, weakly argued comments? There are at least two in the previous post and now we have another here.
Fibi’s on a roll!
But I don’t wanna be bonded with society that way! Gods know the trains are dirty enough as it is …
And I was ninja’ed by Shaun DarthBatman Day because I made a faux intellectual joke.
You ninja you!
*snort*
Tihihaha. Hahah. Oh god now I have to clean up my morning tea. Thanks, kittehserf.
::hands Fibi keyboard cleaner::
kittehserf…OMFG! Are you serious? I swear whenever I think I have had some creepy experiences, someone else well and truly blows me out of the water!
The very idea that you could be a woman who is not taken and who doesn’t like to date random taxi drivers? I mean…what the hell is wrong with YOU??
kitteh, how foolish of me to have forgotten that the sad boner is truly the misandristest horror of horrors, and that clearly if women didn’t want to oppress men with A.) our butts and B.) their sad boners women would all be fully virginalised thrice daily and have multiple surgeries so as to be sexually available and worthy of all the boners.
I am booking my surgeries and revirginification processes for the next thirty years (which can be done because the surgeries will keep me young enough to be fuckable), now where the fuck is my plague of suitors?
Fibi
http://imaninja.com/
I know, I know, the shame! I might have given him a sad boner and everything!
BWAHAHAHAsplutter
… Fibi, can I have that keyboard cleaner back, plz?
“Why? Are you taken”
“No, I’m just not giving.”
Oooooh! I better prepare to use that line.
It’s pretty damn terrifying the thought that you might upset the feelings of a guy whose car you are stuck in the back of.
What katz said.
Ditto.
Funny thing is, I wasn’t really scared at the time – probably naivete, but I didn’t think of rape, as far as I recall. It was creepy, yes, but I was as much offended as anything else. Possibly that was because I was on an errand for work, only about a fifteen-minute drive, and in the city. I’d be fucking scared if it happened now, though.
kittehserf, you have my sincere and heartfelt sympathies; I’ve had the old married guy with child hit on me at work, but not the random taxi driver…I think I need to aim higher LOL! You are indeed the queen of creepy come-on lines LOL!
Good luck to you :-)
LOL no worries, Leisha – it was nearly thirty years ago and doesn’t have any emotion attached to the memory, other than “blech”.
Being hit on by older guy at work, that’s awful! Was he a customer or a co-worker?
There’s an old guy comes into my hairdresser’s salon who might do the sort of “I’m a lonely harmless old man” type of hitting. I can’t be rude to him – my hairdresser’s very fond of him – but at least, as I told her the other day, if he does try flirty stuff, I’ll just tell him he’s too young for me. Which, as it happens, is hand-on-heart truth, and has the added value of being totally baffling for most people. :P
“It’s not the lack of “sexual access” that’s the problem. It’s the notion that your desire for “sexual access” means more than the right of that person to say “no.” It’s the notion that society has done you wrong because you can’t (at least at the moment) get laid. It’s the idea that your desire to have sex with a particular kind of woman somehow trumps the right of other people to live.”
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. How can anyone ever think that their high school girl fetish is more inportant than another persons life. Anyone WHO tries to justify murder in this manner is horrible, horrible person.
For people who think that females shouldn’t have pretty basic rights like protection from DV, reproduction rights, and access to education and fair employment opportunities, their list of “rights” for guys is laughable.
Fucking seriously, they think they should have a “right” to any female they choose? Under what philosophical system could that ever be called a right. Not even libertarianism would support it.
Oh kittehserf, I was 19 years old at the time and he was 41 years old, married and with a young child. I was so naive (my first full time job), and he took advantage of that. I was just a friendly kid but he made me feel like it was my fault. I had no idea what was going on and yet felt guilty when I realised what was happening. I started to wear pants instead of skirts, long shirts instead of short tops, flat shoes instead of high heals. Most of all, I began checking my own behavior, because I thought I had done something to bring it on. Unfortunately, the benefit of age and hindsight has shown me that I was just young and naive, but I wasn’t supposed to be…I was supposed to know what was going on, as opposed to the 41 year old, married father who was hitting on a girl young enough to be his daughter, or at the very least, his niece.
Anyway, there are other examples of this stuff, this wasn’t the only example of this kind of behavior that I encountered socially and in the work place.
It isn’t that I encountered this stuff often, but it happened enough for me to realise that women ‘generally’ suffer this crap all the time. It’s just a shame that it is so socially accepted.
I have actually had MRAs say to me “where you really that traumatized by that situation?”. Well regardless of how they think I should have reacted it really upset me and taught me a really strong message about dealing with men…one I have never forgotten.
Having said that..my husband is the most wonderful man on this planet (to me) and I have always had a wonderful relationship with my father, brother and every other man in my life. I am not a man hater…
Wow… I wish I could do MISANDRY like those guys! I mean, they’re really PRO, aren’t they?! The horrible horrible things they say about men! Pro level, I say. Damn, not even in my wildest dreams………
“Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.”
Hmm, which group is actively fighting the marrative that beautiful women are a prize? Which group is calling for more realistic body diversity in movies? Oh yeah, FEMINISM.
The most glaring problem with this attitude is that it cannot possibly be reciprocal.
The claim is that men should have something very much like a “right” to sexual contact – in particular, sexual relationships with the women they deem most desirable among all of the available women. One very important feature of this claim is that women who don’t meet whatever standard they are referring to will be ignored by the men making these choices.
If they claim that men and women are equal, or something very much like it, then that must mean that women have some equivalent “right” to choose to have sexual relationships with the men they prefer, and only those men. And a matching claim to ignore all of the men who don’t fit their preference – however that preference is arrived at.
And that simply doesn’t work within the framework as these clowns propose it. Obviously it cannot possibly be based on any concept of equal rights and freedoms of both men and women. Otherwise the argument can’t be made in the first place. Because men and women have equal rights to choose who they do and who they don’t spend time and have sexual relationships with.
I have a feeling that most of these blokes have genuinely never thought through the idea that such claims entail a “right” or freedom for themselves. Let alone that their claim for sexual rights/freedoms automatically, and actively, denies any such rights or freedoms to women. Of course, there is the minority that explicitly says that women don’t/shouldn’t have any such rights but they’re not the ones I’m thinking of here. I’m thinking of those who are so blinded by the vision of their own shiny bright freedoms and opportunities they have never thought about how that relates to others’ rights and freedoms.