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.
The worst part is, even if -as these guys don’t give up on doing, we talk about the menz- you buy the horrible 90s-movie perception of reality where all that matters for men is getting laid, with hot young ladies. And young ladies are “selfish” (as in having a say in whoever you feel attracted to, as opposed to “what’s fair”) and throw themselves into the arms of wealthy studs. And if you acknowledge that there are some cultural environments where men feel pressure to be sexually active (with women — specifically beautiful women). And that the unattainable standards of beauty displayed by (most of) the media/advertisements negatively affect non-wealthy-stud-men self-esteem (not women, we’re immune to that).
Even then, you just have the nice-guyish (not quite)naively-sexist blabber. And using any common sense (spoiler: feminism), reasonable people will protest the media, rebel to the absurd expectations of sexual prowess of your environment and culture, and question the photoshopped-western standards of beauty.
But you gotta be a giant piece of entitled shit to demand it be fixed by “hot chicks providing free (or paid) sex to whoever demands it”, because the poor-menz are sexually frustrated.
That’s plain misogyny: to acknowledge a problem you have as cultural but still blame women for it because they don’t mitigate it it by fucking you (well, also excluding women’s subjetivity and experiences from the whole analysis).
Bahahahahaha, I’m sorry. This is too funny. Seriously, manospherians, I don’t know where you’ve been getting your education regarding biology/human evolution/anthropology/critical thinking, but ya’ll need to ask for your money back.
Every time I see one of these rants, I’m reminded of this music video:
Gah, Leisha, that’s skin-crawlingly horrible, not to mention damned scary. :(
For which those women will be forever grateful. Being invisible has some benefits.
For more reinforcement of the “women as sex gatekeepers” notion, here it comes.
“With mounting excitement we are rapidly counting down to A Voice for Men’s First International Conference on Men’s Issues. Activities initiate on June 26, at 1:00 PM EDT”
–Paul Elam
Ewwww …
I just want to clarify that I never said men had any kind of right to women’s bodies. The benifit to society of feminism far out weigh the sexual frustrations of low status, unnatractive men, and I was merely pointing out that unless a solution to that is found we will continue to see a sharp gender divide on a number of issues crucial to that project.
As to the recent discussions about “nice guys.” I do struggle to understand feminists’ very harsh critique of them I’ve rarely met men who felt more entitled to women’s bodies than those who were actually very successful with women due to their looks. And these regurally laid men certainly did not posses the respect for women that nice guys also lack.
As far as “nice guys” go, though. I fail to understand them as well. Sexual attraction is so obviously different than friendship and women make the difference so apparent. If a women likes you, she makes things easy. How can men possibly reach maturity wondering “does she like me yet” and trying to do favors etc to initiate attraction. It’s absurd, and I speculate that many of these men are a form of masochist. They desire unrequited love and martyrdom for the cathartic release ofemotional pain.
I don’t know about that…libertarian ideals seem blessedly unconcerned with the rights and well-being of anyone who’s not already at the top of the social heap. Not recognizing financial coercion as a form of force, etc.
I’ve always been suspicious of libertarianism on the grounds that it’s most popular with middle-class white dudes, Women, POC, and the poor tend not to favor it. Anything that primarily appeals to the haves in society can’t be TEH ULTIMATE EQUALIZER it claims to be.
Undfreeland, if the “solution to that” involves challenging the cultural patterns of sex as a commodity, guilt-free sex for women, stopping the pressure to have frequent-wild-with-hot-teenagers sex for men, body acceptance and leaving aside the glorification of impossible female beauty, etc., I think you can count most feminists in. And this includes making these fellas understand that the world does not owe them hot girls to have sex with, so their frustration only originates in their entitlement.
I’m sorry to break it to you, but all that “dating market” “settle for below average” “low status” “high value” and all that college-movie-crap is not real, and quantifying fuckability-traits seems to be one of the things making these guys feel so cheated and frustrated.
As for the “nice guy fixation”, I am sure that there are many sexist douchebags out there having regular sex -the kind puas fantasize of becoming-, and I don’t think anyone likes them here either. I guess the nice guys just make it too obvious in their complaints how fucked up their worldview is.
Surely the biggest benefit of feminism — for someone with this sort of attitude — would make the issue of “unattractive” men of equal concern to that of “unattractive” women.
I doubt that feminism alone can do much about “low status” because that, to me at least, raises issues of class. (Of course, I could be completely misunderstanding “low status” here. I have a horrible feeling it could mean something like allocating prestige on daft issues like car ownership when it’s lined up with “unattractive” as a personal quality. But I’ve been wrong before so I’m not much fussed.)
Undfreeland,
Your original post on this thread could easily be summarized as “of course murder is wrong but I see where he’s coming from!”
You erased the feelings and desires of women as well as how our culture harms us. Like others pointed out you somehow see the rigid standards of beauty we’re expected to live up as frustrating for men. No mention of how it warms women by encouraging eating disorders and painful, expensive, possibly dangerous cosmetic surgery. Nope. It harms the poor menz because they’re not fucking lots of “10s” Just because you aren’t advocating rape and murder doesn’t mean you haven’t displayed male entitlement here. If your take away from a that virulently misogynistic rant was “men have it so rough” you are a part of the problem.
Also, perhaps most annoyingly you cloaked your words in pseudoscientific babble. Of course you didn’t back up any of your claims with any evidence. I keep hearing this notion that all women who aren’t completely hideous have “an array of suitors” available at any time. Unless you’re counting catcallers as suitors that doesn’t reflect the experiences of the vast majority of women. I’m aware of no research that backs up this claim. Yet it persists.
Libertarianism tends to say that the only laws that can be enforced are those that preserve the status quo and government should be essentially powerless to alter the status quo. So, it’s no surprise that it would have some appeal for middle and upper class white guys.
As to the subject of the original post’s premise about violence, I wonder how U.S.’s near historic low levels of violent crime these days jives with the notion that feminism and a woman’s right to control her sexual destiny are destroying our social fabric or whatever.
On the subject of suitors – possibly a Saville Row, particularly if they are MRA Suitors.
This idea that males are given to irrepressible fury by not getting what they want puts men on the level of particularly unsocialised toddlers.
The other point is that these guys seem to miss is that guys can be virgins too and that virgins of either sex are often completely unaware of how to actually please the other sex.
Once again, catching up with a thread the morning after…
Oh, gosh, let’s not even get into this. I mean, we wasted at least a third of the semester in my Intermediate Microeconomics class trying to hammer out that particular riddle. Is the Keynesian school correct, and government stimulus is needed to provide every Nice Guy with a HB8 or greater until the economy corrects itself? Or should we rely on supply side theory and give massive tax breaks to all the feeemales until they deign to give male consumers the sex they so fervently desire?
I’m still torn on my choice of term paper. I was really tempted to study “The Hard Slut Dilemma” but instead pursued “The Cock Carousel: An Economy of Scale.”
I love how you say that like it’s a bad thing.
Yeah. This.
Sarah I’m finding you comments interesting today…
“Undfreeland, if the “solution to that” involves challenging the cultural patterns of sex as a commodity, guilt-free sex for women, stopping the pressure to have frequent-wild-with-hot-teenagers sex for men, body acceptance and leaving aside the glorification of impossible female beauty, etc., I think you can count most feminists in. And this includes making these fellas understand that the world does not owe them hot girls to have sex with, so their frustration only originates in their entitlement.”
I agree with that, there is too much emphasis on so-called “hot women,” and men will find more success if they choose partners according to how well their personalities mesh rather than how much the girls’ bodies conform to media promoted cultural norms.
This goes the some way for women as well. The situation is that roughly 70 percent of heterosexual women and men want to pair off with the top 20 percent most attractive members of the opposite sex. Even when an average man or woman is attracted to an average potential partner, there’s a good chance that person is holding out for someone more attractive. This is especially true in high school or college where people are more likely to try to pick partners that impress their friends.
“I’m sorry to break it to you, but all that “dating market” “settle for below average” “low status” “high value” and all that college-movie-crap is not real, and quantifying fuckability-traits seems to be one of the things making these guys feel so cheated and frustrated.”
I agree in that accepting the media promoted cultural standard of what is attractive creates al sorts of these problems, and people needlessly miss out on great relationships based on personality compatibility.
“As for the “nice guy fixation”, I am sure that there are many sexist douchebags out there having regular sex -the kind puas fantasize of becoming-, and I don’t think anyone likes them here either. I guess the nice guys just make it too obvious in their complaints how fucked up their worldview is.”
If no one likes those sexist douchebags, why are they able to have regular sex????? This is why many women have to take a hard look at who they’re attracted to. I’m not saying that anyone should sleep with anyone they’re not attracted to, but many people should take a harder look at who they find attractive and why.
When women complain about the men they’re dating being jerks or “All the good men are married or gay!” (This was a very common complaint in the 1980s & 90s just before the internet), they need to take a closer look at who they’ve put in their friendzone.
“I just want to clarify that I never said men had any kind of right to women’s bodies.”
Of course not. No one outside of an incel rant says that or believes that. However it is feminist dogma that any man who feels frustrated by lack of success with women or used the word “friendzone” feels entitled to women’s bodies regardless of how she feels about that. Men are not allowed to desire sex until given permission by a woman.
“As to the recent discussions about “nice guys.” I do struggle to understand feminists’ very harsh critique of them I’ve rarely met men who felt more entitled to women’s bodies than those who were actually very successful with women due to their looks. And these regurally laid men certainly did not posses the respect for women that nice guys also lack.”
That’s because when women find them attractive and give them permission, they ARE entitled.
Flying Mouse wins the internets today!
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most thin, beautiful, virginal girls for the greatest good of every Nice Guy.”
– John Maynard Keynes
“The avoidance of holding Nice Guys responsible for their misogynistic and entitled attitudes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward.”
– John Maynard Keynes
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_maynard_keynes.html
Keynes totally got the plight of the Nice Guys!
Sigh. So, undfreeland, which is it? A terrible world in which women aren’t forced to depend on men financially anymore, or one in which we’re all gold diggers? You don’t get to have it both ways. There is something seriously wrong with the character of men who take issue with the fact that they can’t force women to be with them.
Regardless of the fake facts, figures, and anecdotes men like you throw out there, most men don’t make a lot of money, are not super attractive, and still most of them have at least a girlfriend or two in their lifetimes and get married. You guys can’t whine about there not being enough “10s” to go around on one hand and then whine that women get to judge you in some shallow way back.
Regardless of how many antiquated ideas men like you still want to hang on to, or how “frustrated” you get, or how violent, the days of men cornering the market on getting everything they want at the expense of women who don’t get any choices in the direction of their lives is OVER.
Learn it, know it, live it.
tea, it seems that the average guy who has one or two girlfriends and then manages to marry would be a happier bloke if his limited spouse choice was not limited to a woman who had her “wild phase” that was easy to accomplish given all the willing men, many far more attractive than this dude she settled for. The MRAs say the guy is a chump and she is a used up alpha widow who rode the carrousel while he lived in a sexual desert. Amazing huh?
“an array of suitors”
Well, if a woman is out to get laid with no other expectations, yes, far more than men, a woman can ‘accomplish’ that. But that is only because men are so easy. Not all men all the time of course, but enough men to make that reality possible. But so what?
@ weirwoodtreehugger :D
My take away had nothing to do with saying that men have it so bad. I was merely trying to explain why low status men fail to align themselves with progress.
I am also skeptical that feminism could correct the problem of men being deemed unnatractive, as one poster pointed out. All that is required for a women to be attractive is a reasonable level of physical fitness. Men must be fit, tall, have good facial structure, style and economic status. I have seen feminists denegrate fat shaming, definitely a positive thing as many women, even if perfectly healthy, are not super thin, but I’ve never seen anything said about male beauty standards. In fact, what I frequently observe is feminists distressing over men’s preference for thin women, and then asserting a woman’s right to be attracted to whomever she chooses.
To be clear, I am not saying women shouldn’t choose who they have sex with, just that nothing is really going to address the sexual non-existence of low status men.
As for women not having a lot of male attention, if they do not, it is either because they are unnatractive, do not go out much, or are oblivious.
Because women are a hive mind and have the same ideas of what attractive is. /sarcasm
How would you explain my one uncle being happily married with kids, even though he’s gone through his entire life with the physic characteristics of a bearded Pillsbury Doughboy?
It’s almost like my aunt still liked him!
Physical, not physic.
Typing, what is this typing?
Seriously dude?
Seriously dude?
God, how I wish some dudes spouting BS like this like it’s gospel truth could be a woman for *just one day.*
“I am also skeptical that feminism could correct the problem of men being deemed unnatractive” aaaaaaaand “as for women not having a lot of male attention, if they do not, it is (…) because they are unnatractive”. Ok I’m done LOL. Go cry somewhere else about the unfairness of the “dating market” you jerk.
Tealily, as I made clear, the liberation of women has been a good thing, but to deny that low-status men loose out with feminism is ludicrous. It’s entirely possible that you don’t give a shit about that. You’d be well within reason to dismiss their sexual frustration as inconsequential next to the dangers of merely being a woman, the stigma of a queer sexual identity or the downright demonization of transsexuals. Doesn’t make it any less true. Doesn’t mean they’ll magically come around and support something that they are as only harming them.
There seems to be a good bit of MRA/”Nice Guy” thinking that is based on their bedrock assumption that it’s easier for a woman who wants sex to have it than for a man – that, for example, if a woman walked into a bar and asked 10 guys to have sex, there is a much higher probability she’ll find a taker than if a man walked into a bar and asked 10 women to have sex.
It doesn’t seem to matter that women – who would presumably know better than them – say that it’s just not that easy for women to find a sex partner.
grumpy…it depends on what the woman wants. As with everything else in life, some things are easier to obtain than others. The more challenging usually means the more value due to the rarity.
Grumpycatisagirl, I have a suggestion for you that doesn’t even involve non-magical powers. Just for one day, try approaching men you find attractive in a way that demonstrates obvious interest. You may be amazed at the results.
It also doesn’t seem to matter that walking into a bar and asked 10 men if they want to have sex is something I would not do out of concern for, you know, my safety.
<Just for one day, try approaching men you find attractive in a way that demonstrates obvious interest. You may be amazed at the results.
You know, I’ve done that, and sometimes the man obviously doesn’t reciprocate interest. Which is fine. I move on. Funny how you assume that I can’t have ever done anything like that before.
Its a quandary for women. They don’t want sex to be hard to get as it is for most men to get. Thats understandable as life has enough challenges. But the always-willing supply of men also brings ‘collateral annoyances’ and those are the bulk of dudes who a woman prefers would not approach her at all.
Why is undfreeland shitting up a thread again with his bullshit? Sorry you can’t get a date, duder, but that’s not the fault of feminism.
True, its not feminism that causes a lack of dates. Its the handful of dudes who know how to work feminism better and thus have rotations going.
Come off it. Your entire posts have been all “what about the menz” all the time. You are using subtle and manipulative language to place the blame on feminists and women for the misogynistic, entitled, even violent attitude some men have. Never mind that these attitudes existed long before feminism did.
Why would feminism need to correct that “problem.” Feminism doesn’t exist to help men get dates. Why would it? The fact that some men can’t get laid isn’t a problem that needs to be tackled by any social justice movement. That’s not what SJ movements are for. For the record, I don’t expect them to help women get dates either.
You haven’t provided a citation for this. You haven’t provided a definition of “reasonable level of physical finess.” In order for a hypothesis to be work it must be falsifiable. Please define your parameters.
And what women who aren’t what you’d deem physically fit. You’ve completely erased fat women from the conversation as well as men who are attracted to fat women.
You’ve also been erasing LGBTQA people out of the conversation as is typical for those spouting evo psych assfax.
Again, citation needed. Are you seriously telling me you don’t know a single man who isn’t rich and conventionally attractive that is happily coupled?
Where has anyone here ever said men aren’t allowed to freely choose who they’re attracted to? Show me.
People of any gender have the right to be picky about the looks of their partners. However, if you want a partner who fits into conventional beauty standards and you don’t meet those standards yourself you might have a hard time finding a partner. Again, that’s your right but it is not your right to become resentful and violent if you can’t find someone who meets your rigid standards.
See above. Sex with conventionally beautiful women is not a human right.
For about the 100th time, please provide a citation. You are just making assumptions with nothing to back them up. Just because something feels right and true, doesn’t mean it is.
Men who know how to “work feminism” to get dates are causing a lack of dates? No. Ick.
Well right. There are just way more variables involved with who has sex with whom, when and why than the cartoonishly simple “sexual marketplace” theories account for. Safety is a big one.
Riiiiiiight. Uh-huh, sure.
This is not a problem. This is a reality of human subjectivity.
You are really reinforcing the idea that you think of women as interchangeable sets of dick-receiving orifices.
Nope. No feminist has ever argued that men should start having sex with a prescribed quota fat women in the name of body positivity. They argue that fat PEOPLE should be allowed and encouraged to feel beautiful and express their sexuality without being subject to ridicule or harassment. Asking for a basic level of respect and acceptance is NOT the same as asking people to change their sexual preferences for the greater good.
Because it is a NON-ISSUE. No one is owed sex. Sex is not a human right. Making sure “low-status” men get enough pussy to make them feel validated is not a social justice agenda item.
Pure, undistilled bullshit. Stop explaining our own experiences to us.
Do I need to yell at you? Fine. CITATION NEEDED!!! CITATION NEEDED!!! CITATION NEEDED!!!
You are making a claim, pretending it is self evident and not backing it up.
Exactly. *TMI incoming:* I’ve been single for awhile now and there have been times I’ve gotten lonely and horny. I’m no supermodel, but I’m probably attractive enough to get on OK Cupid or Craigslist and find a one night stand in short order. However, I don’t do that. Because there are a lot of dangerous and violent misogynists out there.
Maybe if whiney fedora bros stopped perpetuating misogynistic attitudes and started treating women like human beings we would be more likely to fuck them. As it stands, I’d rather just masturbate than fuck a creepy entitled Nice Guy.
Right. Dating has nothing to do with the priorities or decision of the woman involved. It’s all in the hands of men who know how to “work feminism” on ladies as if they’re fucking wind-up toys.
You’re disgusting.
It seems that the difference being claimed above is that few if any men can “get on OK Cupid or Craigslist and find a one night stand in short order” no matter how attractive they are. Isn’t that known as the ‘double standard’ and why men proactively attempt to avoid women who have engaged in this behavior when seeking a life partner?
Men don’t like women who have one night stands because they aren’t capable of having one night stands themselves? I mean, not only is the second part just not true, but the logic here is bad even by MRA standards.
Totally ninja’d by weirwoodtreehugger, but holy fuck, this is some top level petulant whining.
TIL from undfreeland:
1. Women never approached men ever. (Fun fact: I actively pursued the man who became my only serious boyfriend to date.)
2. Women who are some undefined level of “reasonably physically fit” can have sex whenever they want. (As long as we have absolutely no standards ever) (Also, my array of suitors has yet to materialize, can someone at Feminist Central get on that?)
3. No man who is unemployed or in a low-paying job has ever had sex with a woman ever. (Going to dump my unemployed man friend now because SEXUAL MARKETPLACE)
4. No short man or physically unfit man has had sex ever (I should inform… most of the guys I’ve dated that they dreamed the whole thing)
Oh, and 5. Attractiveness is a simple linear scale upon which all humans can be located as either average, below average or above average. This scale is totally objective and individual human preference never come into play. Factors like personality, chemistry, shared interests, similar values, age and culture are irrelevant.
Um, I’m considered unnattractive when I’m thin too. The men who are generally attracted to me I’m not attracted to and they are few. My appearance is incessantly criticised when I’m thin too. It’s just criticised more when I’m fat. I go out every day. I’m very much aware of attention I recieve.
Taino, you have so many layers of misogyny overlapped in that comment that it stopped making any sense at all. Try deciding which hateful misconception you want to try before writing the comment next time. Or even better, stop being a misogynist asshole.
Also everything tinyorc said. Wow.
Taino:
That’s fine. I proactively attempt to avoid men who are going judge my worth as a human based on the number of sexual partners I’ve had. Because they are invariably insecure bitter misogynists who believe some truly ridiculous things about the female anatomy. I would truly rather be single for my entire life than partner with a man who thinks I’m ruined or sullied because I’ve had an active sex life.
So it works out well for everyone really!
undfreeland, if there were any validity whatsoever to what you’re saying, my mum would not have dumped her handsome, athletic, and abusive first husband, and would not now be engaged to a “lower status” man. He’s overweight and doesn’t make as much money, but he *is* kind, intelligent, interesting, generous, and a gentle man, as opposed to a gentleman. Could it be that women are attracted to things other than looks and cash?
And on the general topic here, I better inform the cute 20-something guy I’ve been seeing that he isn’t really attracted to me, because what handsome young man would want a sexually used-up old slut-hag a decade his senior, who doesn’t look exactly like Angelina Jolie? (Or whoever counts as a 10 now…)
Wait a second – by this logic, Angelina’s an over the hill, used up slut-hag too! Or is it different because she’s rich, famous, and considered to be extremely attractive by current standards?
undfreeland,
If women are no longer financially dependent on men, wouldn’t that mean that low status men who don’t make tons of money actually have a chance now? That sounds like opening up the “sexual marketplace”.
Wtf? No. My point is that men would have an easier time getting laid if they any respect at all for women. This comment just completely made my point.
Not all women (or men for that matter) are comfortable with having casual sex. But lots of women are morally, emotionally, and physically fine with them. However, we must be on the constant lookout for red flags because so many men harbor misogynist attitudes. They can be dangerous. Even when they aren’t dangerous they sure as hell aren’t attractive.
The point is that lots of women would have more frequent casual sex if it weren’t for these factors:
1) Slut shaming is still a thing as evidenced in Taino’s comment.
2) A lot of men behave in ways that are creepy and treat us like meat. It is possible to have casual sex with someone, not want a serious relationship and still view them a an actual human being. Creepy and invasive behavior turns me off a whole lot more than shortness and lack of money, two things that are not actually that important.
3) Violence against women is very common. Even if you’re on the lookout for red flags a previously polite and safe seeming man can turn a dime and become scary. Being alone with a man is a risk we have to calculate.
My contention is that feminism is not stopping guys from getting laid or getting dates. The patriarchy is.
In other what-about-the-menz news, serious unjust misandry happening to all men who are not talented enough to play in the football world cup and feeling frustrated because reasons. AND FEMINISM IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
“No short man or physically unfit man has had sex ever.”
Someone inform Peter Dinklage that he isn’t married, doesn’t have children, and doesn’t have a lot of female fans who think he’s sexy! Stat!
I believe that under the Uniform Attraction Rules ™, a man gets Attraction Points for making more money than a woman. If the woman is prevented from earning money, this necessarily makes it easier for a man to earn enough money to receive Attraction Points.
Added bonus: with women out of the labor force, there is less of a labor supply which raises wages and makes it even easier for a man to earn Attraction Points.
So, win-win for the marginally employed, conventionally unattractive man. Not so great for women.
Also, I should add for those unfamiliar with the UAR that Attraction Points can be redeemed for sex with any woman with the woman’s point requirements being governed by the following formula: ((Waist/Hip)/(Age + Partner Count)) * 100.
“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.”
What a joke the above comment. What about our society through movies, books, magazines that give messages to women about standards of beauty and how a man can validate them? How about the many women that are impacted by anorexia/bulimia. I know so I have a cousin who has had issues with eating disorders and has mentioned to me about the messages women get about standards of beauty. If anyone has any loved ones or friends with an eating disorder, it is a very distressing. How about all the exploitative mens magazines like maxim that have basically thin model type women?
You know as a guy who initially found out about the so called manosphere and mens rights blog I initially tried to keep an open mind. I have always respected men that are truly trying to help such as Michael Kimmel , Jackson Katz, and Rob Okun However, the first time I read avfm and Elam’s blog I detected that these dudes were not trying to solve social/political issues for men such as suicide or depression- these are guys that are bitter because they think they are entitled to sex with every woman. Furthermore, It is this sense of entitlement that can lead to male violence that we saw in Santa Barbara.Also as a Jewish person, I observed a few anti semitic comments form these angry men.
That is why in the last couple of weeks I have been posting at this blog because I feel these hateful misogynists need to be exposed. This blog is good because it has a good support community as well. After I read Michael Kimmel’s book “Angry white men” and with the horrific Santa Barbara murders, and to top it off a hateful conference in Detroit is being planned, I decided I need to help expose and track down these guys mra’s do not like David and this blog because David exposes the truth about these mra’s/pua’s/mgtow they are full of hate and do no good for the cause of anyone human being.
You’re right. I don’t.
In addition to the fact that I have been married to a wonderful man for 28 years who doesn’t fit the criteria for what men who share your mindset think is crucial for attracting women, someone, may I add, who had several girlfriends before me, I find it laughably hypocritical that MRAs/PUAs/MGTOW have no problem pointing to Darwin, biology, and “survival of the fittest” when it suits them, have such a hard time with the fact that they, when it comes to dating, just may be the “unfit” and think that its the responsibility of others to fix that and then threaten potential violence if it doesn’t happen.
Yay, Tinyorc, WWTH, Doug, Contrapangloss, Corgitime & Winter Walker.
I just want to emphasize that the fat acceptance movement has nothing to do with whether anyone, male or female, gets laid. The primary goal are to abolish the discrimination faced by fat people simply for existing and not conforming to an arbitrary standard of beauty. Such discrimination is the fact that fat people (especially women) are more likely to be considered lazy and not hired, are more likely to be found guilty in court (@ least in US where the study was done), are more likely to face abuse simply for going about their lives, etc.
No one cares about whether random guy 01 or random woman 01 can get a date. As another commenter said, that isn’t a social justice issue.
Lycere, not having sex =/= barred from participating in life. And, yes, someone’s ability to say no is absolutely more important than anyone else’s desire for sex. You are not entitled to anyone else.
Seriously not okay with this kind of threatening comment (Lycere’s). Not okay. I don’t care who you are.
Tee-hee, I always love this old chestnut. I’m a pinch under 5’7″ in my sock feet. When my husband forgets to stand up straight, I am unambiguously the taller of the two of us.
So what’s the deal here? Are people maybe attracted to traits other than height? Are people sometimes attracted to traits that don’t fall under the commonly accepted “must be this __ to date” criteria? Is my husband actually six foot three and has spent twelve years walking on his knees just for giggles?
Or – my good dog – is my attraction to him based on some kind of nefarious mind trickery? Is he one of the few, the proud, who has figured out how to work The Feminist System? Is my whole married life a lie?!!! Oh, the huge manatee!!!
How much does anyone want to bet that the people that think society “owes” them opportunities to have sex claim that they want less government, too.
Why would any rational driven over-acheiving independent person want more government?
Welcome to involuntary fight club, where your desire not to be punched in the nose is not more important than my right to punch you.
It is more important. You don’t have the right to another person’s body. Not ever.
This is the most disturbing comment I’ve ever read on here. That’s a pretty high bar to clear.
Because ordinary people sometimes need the Leviathan to protect them against lesser predators. Being industrious and clever is no protection against getting screwed by someone with more power than you.
Wow. You really walked right into that one, Taino.
Can Lycere be banned for being a horrific violence and rape apologist?
“And how dare you suggest that someone’s desire to say “No” is more important than someone else’s desire to have sex with that person.”
I honestly got up to this point and thought it was sarcasm. Like “how dare you want your “no’s” to be a right! How could u possibly! It’s just a temporary inconvenience to fuck someone who has the right to your body!” So grotesque, seriously what’s always “between the lines” in any MRA rant. Kind of refreshing actually. He just said it! THANK YOU!!!
And if fucking me was ever considered an inconvenience to someone – I would not WANT to fuck said person.