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.
TIL that it is impossible that a woman should be attracted to a man who doesn’t compensate for his poverty by being exceptionally good looking. Hetro women are so shallow that only money and/or good looks attract us.
Oh hello racist asswipe.
Sweet fluffy nephews of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, undfreeland, I think you need to work on trying to build up some basic friendships with women for the express purpose of being friends with them, and not with some hidden desire to bang them that you have a sad about. When you stop thinking about women – and yourself – in terms of “status” and start thinking about individual attributes you find appealing in others, and that others find appealing in you, then you might see that your current self-pity is not entirely justified.
(Raises hand)
Small white woman who used to live near Brixton and walked around there all the time here. Note that I am still alive!
The best part is that he probably doesn’t even think he said anything racist, bless his shrunken, atrophied, boner-focused little heart.
And now I’m a racist, apparently. I live in a predominantly Hispanic city, and it is Hispanic coworkers who have cautioned me when I excitedly told them about a bunch of really cheap apartments I had found. They assured me I would not last long there. I’m inclined to believe them seeing as how a white coworker of mine was nearly beaten to death in that side if town by some folks that wanted to steal his car.
Ah, I see that we’ve reached the “but I have black friends!” stage of the whiny asshole lifecycle.
If you’d just said “I live in a poor area” you might’ve been okay, dude. You really don’t do yourself any favours.
The best part is that he isn’t even bothering to try to refute people who point out how grossly misogynistic he’s being, but the moment people pointed out that he was being racist he protested. So apparently he’s just self-aware enough to realize that, oh hey, being seen as racist is not really ideal (while still not being willing to actually stop being a racist, because that’s just too much to ask for), but if people think he’s a misogynist then hey, whatever.
Strivingaly I have plenty of friendships with women, and I don’t form friendships with women to get in their pants. I ‘m not some Nice Guy moron. I know that doesn’t work.
At whoever it was that said something about needing citation for the fact that attraction is deeply imbedded in biological and socialization. Wtf? What’s the alternative? Attraction certainly isn’t a conscience choice.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
I don’t live in a poor city. I live in a predominantly Hispanic city. The two aren’t mutuality inclusive, and their does happen to be a lot if racial tension due to people that looking me doing some pretty shitty things.
I have repeatedly refuted the notion that I am mysogynistic, even touting the benefits of feminism.
LOL
undfreeland:
Yeah dude, it’s everyone else who is totally lying to themselves and deluded about their own relationships. Only you are capable of gauging their attractiveness and that of their partners via Internet comments and making an objective assessment of their “status” apropos of nothing but your own sad attempts to shoehorn the entirety of human experience into your dating market model.
We could throw anecdata at this gobshite all week, but it won’t make any difference. Anyone describing a happy relationship or sexual encounter based on nuanced mutual attraction is just going to be ignored, dismissed, or told they are lying or delusional.
We are people, not pieces of fruit. This is the single most telling reason why you will never have this:
Cassandrakitty, I really would like to know what it is that pisses you off so much about me. I support every major feminist initiative, I don’t feel entitled to sex with women. I just describe the world as I see it, in a way that harms no one.
@tinyorc: you ninja’d me on that excerpt about “high-status men”.
@undfreeland: If you can be friends with women then there must be things about you that people like. Focusing on how “unlovable” you are is a death spiral of desperation, and I say that as a guy who was once convinced I’d never have a decent relationship. If people can like you as a friend then you have some redeeming features. You perhaps just need to think a little harder about how your words come across at times.
Joy, laughter, playfulness, the pure silliness of people who are sexually involved, infatuated even, with each other seems entirely foreign to these clowns.
I can’t imagine that fun is a concept any of these blokes can comprehend in any context. Let alone take part in the witless, giggling pillow talking and whispering, that most people associate with happy sexytimes. (Nor do they seem to understand how such private silliness often results in a repeat of those sexytimes fairly quickly.)
And now I’m picturing him wandering around squeezing random women’s butts like he thinks he’s in the produce section picking out fruit, and it’s all thanks to you, tinyorc!
I’m not pissed off, dude, I’m laughing at you.
I’m resoundingly – and I really do mean resoundingly – average-looking. I can’t imagine anyone giving me so much as a second glance in a club or a bar, and have never seen any evidence to the contrary.
Why are you so determined to shove the real world into your stereotypical pigeonhole? Can’t you feel the chafing?
Not “damn charming”, naturally pleasant. I’d often ring when her boss was out (this was over twenty years ago, long before smartphones), and she was usually bored out of her skull and fancied a chat (since she couldn’t surf a web that had barely been invented). It really isn’t difficult to strike up a rapport with someone in those circumstances – and, obviously, looks had nothing to do with it.
This really isn’t rocket science. We “met” over the phone, just as I first “met” my wife online, hit it off verbally and then decided that we didn’t find each other completely repulsive when we finally met up. This is so common (especially today) that it’s laughable.
I’m not surprised, because even in this highly constricted medium you’re coming across as a deeply unattractive personality. And one key reason would appear to be your fondness for making stuff up and then presenting it to “people like me” as fact – whereas I’m given to understand that being a good listener is both intensely attractive and exceptionally rare.
And I have no problem “fathoming what it’s like to be unattractive”. I didn’t lose my virginity until I was well into my twenties. Sorry, has that undermined your ridiculous stereotype even more?
Define “unattractive”. Obviously, I’m loath to second-guess your answer, but would I be right in thinking that for you it’s mostly or entirely to do with looks?
This was the early 1990s, but it was still cheap then. Although I don’t earn that much more now than I did then – but fortunately I have a high-earning wife who can routinely pull in five or six times what I do.
Are you beginning to understand why I’m finding your assumptions about me so hilarious?
Okay, I’m done. You cannot fundamentally believe in that “dating market” bullshit and say you support feminist “initiatives”. Any bullshit philosophy that reduces women (and men!) to a rating or ranking, and relies on a single scale of beauty, is so essentially anti-feminist that I find it amazing you think you’d find a receptive audience here. Feminism is about dismantling the whole adversarial battle-of-the-sexes social model that underpins your ideas about what men and women supposedly want. You can’t say you support feminist ideas after telling us you negged a woman to get sex out of her.
Guh. I need a shower.
“I have repeatedly refuted the notion that I am mysogynistic, even touting the benefits of feminism.”
Look, you claim that women are a monolithic block who are attracted to money and looks alone, and men are a monolithic block attracted only to slender women, ignoring the huge swathes of the population who are not conventionallly attractive, or who are poor or fat, yet manage to have a lot of amazing sex with a long-term commited partner. That opinion is misogynistic (and misandristic).
You assume that mistreating women is the way to attract them because you were successful a few times, never mind that had you instead acted like you didn’t care if they had sex with you but DID care about them as a person you probably could STILL be having sex with the gorgeous women you screwed a couple times. This is misogynist. Also it’s probably why you are lonely.
What’s more, you aren’t even saying “most people are like this, with some exceptions.” That would be a little misogynistic, maybe, but would be consistent with pscyhology and human nature at least. Instead, when someone challenges this– for example, explaining how they fell in love without seeing thier partner first, and only later learned how smoking the woman was– you don’t say, “Well, okay, there are exceptions to every rule.” Instead you say that that gentleman MUST be wealthy and attractive, even though he’s been clear that he is not either, and you can’t see him. This is logically ridiculous, contrary to everything we know about humanity, and completely irrational. There are websites out there for men who cannot get erections unless their partner is an amputee, or morbidly obese, and you are claiming that everyone, no exceptions, is fundamentally attracted to the same thing? And you claim this is rational?
“denying” ≠ “refuting”
BTW, attributing anger to a woman who’s not only calm but quite obviously having a good time? That’s sexism, that is. You just can’t help yourself, can you?
Strivingaly, sorry to have put you off so much. For the record, I did not “neg” those women to get sex out of them. I was merely in a mood where I didn’t really give a fuck and was drunk and I was an ass and something about that turned on these women who had previously rejected me. (I specifically chose the three examples I did because they were all women who I’d been out with before and who had rejected me.) also, I am not an advocate for the dating market as it stands. I just describe it as I see it. I did not necessarily expect to find a receptive audience. I merely wished to present a my point if view, which I feel is relatively unique. I was banned from return if kings for attempting to do the same there. The objections were quite different, as you can imagine. With the exception of a few, ya’ll are much more polite.
Cassandrakitty, ah, that makes sense. You do have some rather funny notions about me. Always happy to entertain.
B, you are of course correct. It’s just that Beautiful people, being free to pursue beautiful people, rarely develop fetishes like that. Why would they need to?
Wetherby, I suppose things must be different in Europe. Ya’ll are more progressive, from what I understand.
Tinyorc, you are no doubt correct about my fate, but it will not be because I do not respect woman enough. I’ve seen some of the most beautiful women I’ve known pine after men who doubted the humanity of women. Once again, though, this is not a nice guy rant. The heart wants it wants. I do not believe myself more worthy than the men who make them happy.
Nope.
BTW random but awesome thing I just found. I would totally give this number to undfreeland if I ever met him at a bar.
http://feminist-phone-intervention.tumblr.com/post/88518084309/669-221-6251-please-scroll-down-for-updates-on
Because it couldn’t possibly be that your “dating market” theory is a pile of poop. Nope, must be that those strangely liberal Europeans do things differently over there? /sarcasm
(For those who don’t feel like clicking links, you give them the number, they call it, and a voice reads them Bell Hooks quotes.)
That would be me – waves cheerfully.
You’re the one making the claim that attraction is deeply embedded in the psyche due to to biology & society and implying from that that women are universally attracted by money and/or good looks only.
The fact that you cannot conceive of alternatives is not my problem. The one making the claim needs to provide the evidence, laddie.
This asshole’s still here?
Quick note on beards, not into long ones, just like an inch or less. lol Again individual preferences, not that undfreeland would understand.
What attracted me to my first boyfriend? He like I was into art, animals, and Pokemon, plus he was nice to me.
My second boyfriend was a writer (like me), was funny, weird (like me), and smart. Definitely not high status, and not conventionally attractive, yet I stuck by him fir six damn years was not the one to end the relationship.
My first regular casual partner turned out to be loaded, but I had no idea of that when I said yes to a date with him. Plus he had a body type that I was afraid of at the time. I said yes because he was funny. I went with him back to his apartment after the date (still unaware of his financial status) because he was still funny and I felt reasonably safe with him.
My second regular casual partner turned out to be incredibly good-looking, but his photos online didn’t do him justice and I still don’t know what his financial status is (nor do I give a shit). I agreed to meet with him because he didn’t try to argue me out of meeting in public first (as some men had tried).
My third boyfriend’s photos couldn’t have done him less justice if he’d tried. I didn’t know his financial status either. I agreed to meet him because he understood my username and we had a great conversation. His financial status was unstable, and he wasn’t loaded by any means, and I was unemployed at the time. Yet we progressed quickly from acquaintances to FWB to SOs, and he was the one to end the relationship.
My most recent casual partner has worked at the same job for over a decade, and I can’t imagine it’s a particularly high-paying one. He attracted me because he was well-spoken and intelligent and talked to me like a person. Even while flirting with me he talked to me like a person. Conventionally I guess he’d be average (he’s not super tall or ripped), but his smile, eyes, beard, voice, laugh, forearms, and the way he uses his hands do it for me just fine. MORE than fine.
But I’m sure undfreeland will spew some more evo psych inspired bullshit to insist that women are attracted to money (don’t care), being treated like shit (nope!), and looks (true, but many of my preferences differ from convention, and looks still have to be accompanied by feeling safe).
Soooooo true.
Can you imagine any of them getting the giggles over farts, let alone those giggles leading to sexytimes?
Is anyone else starting to get a whiff of socks with this pretentious, toes-rational, totes-I’m-not-a-misogynist troll? Just this last page, I’m starting to think, this one’s been around before. There’s too much of the lulz troll and fake persona about it. Blog herpes, anyone?
He’s pretty much a perfect illustration of the problem, isn’t he?
Him : Women only like conventionally hot men with money, and I am not one. Woe is me, for I shall never acquire a quality woman.
Everyone else : (Happily chatting away about what attracts them to men, which turns out to vary a lot, with the only common factors being that we got along well with them and they treated us well.)
Him : So, have I mentioned my theory about how women are only interested in incredibly conventionally attractive men with tons of money? It’s a very unique and original theory, so I thought you’d find it interesting.
Ugh, most unoriginal troll ever.
@kittehserf,
RIGHT?! Farts are funny, I don’t care what anyone says. Or, or, or, what about tickle-fests? Oo! Oo! Also, having little natural insulation, I get cold very easily, and I love to warm up my hands on a man I happen to be dating at the time! Of course, then he has to take revenge by putting a cold bottle on the back of my back, but I’m more stealthy, so I get him back when he’s least expecting it. :D And yes, all of these things can and have led to incredible sex. My most recent casual partner beat me at a thumb war. Nobody beats me at a thumb war! Mind, I was drunk, so we’ll have to have a rematch when I’m sober.
B:
QTF. Unfreeland, you can “tout the benefits” of feminism as much as you want, but Feminism 101 is acknowledging that women are a diverse group of autonomous individuals that have different needs, desires and goals that are not solely, or even predominantly, determined by their gender. Literally EVERYTHING you have posted on this thread indicates that you don’t think of women as people. You think we are all attracted to the same things, you think we all react the same way to certain behaviours, you discount our opinions because you are convinced you understand our life experiences better than we do, and your language is full of tells that say you think of women (particularly attractive women) as objects, as status symbols, as products, etc.
Of course, you also seem to think a lot of these things about men, but that doesn’t make you any less of a misogynist.
If I heard you holding forth on this subject at a bar, I would turn on heel and walk swiftly in the opposite direction. I would do this even if you were Tom Hiddleston’s rakish younger brother in an Armani suit.* Because your views are repugnant. Your habit of explaining other people’s lives to them is also rude and presumptuous and makes you come across like a condescending asshat. If you do that to all the women in your life, I suggest you stop.
*(For the record, I would probably walk away from a man in an Armani suit in most situations, because ostentatious displays of excessive wealth make me uncomfortable, but that doesn’t fit with dating market theory, so I expect it will be ignored.)
Thanks, Kim! I was thinking of how literally a lot of the misters would take that kind of analysis, too. They’d probably be on board until they got to my application of supply-side theory. Then the smear campaigns would begin. Using sacred Reaganomics to give wimmenz (aka, the producers/suppliers) economic stimulus measures? Burn the witch!
I want a hat, as part of my quest to grow up to be Granny Weatherwax.
undfreeland seems pretty convinced that what he believes is perfectly representative and what everyone here has told him is outliers and exceptions.
He’s either a lulztroll or exceptionally resistant to any perspective that doesn’t match his. Either way it’s getting harder to believe there’s much point engaging with him.
And FTR his reductive view of the “dating market” being purely based of conventional beauty & money sells MEN short too. If we internalise that crap then we place way too much importance on other people’s perceptions of our relationships, and not enough faith in our own reasons for liking a particular person. This is where crap like “you can do better” and “punching above his weight” can be horrible ideas that reduce relationships to a scorecard and convince men that their acquisition of a female companion is being rated and judged like some kind of Olympic event.
I know of all the women I’ve dated, their level of adherence to conventional “prettiness” has only been one of many factors that drew me to them. In my younger years I thought that’s because I had weird taste in women, but it’s become apparent to me that I placed less value solely on appearance than my contemporaries when I was younger.
Oh, undfreeland.
Yes, because nothing says “I acknowledge the individuality and intellect of each woman” like this:
Or this:
Nothing there about the joy of being with someone who gets your jokes, someone who challenges your opinions, someone who introduces you to new ideas and enthusiasms. Just longing for the validation that comes from being loved (not loving her, too – just being loved) by a beautiful woman. No working on a relationship, no mutually giving and receiving happiness; just sitting back and basking in the glow of her regard.
Yup, that totally sounds as if you like women as people. No commodification of the ladies here!
The “quality women” thing brings back memories, though. Oh, that great day when I turned eighteen and the USDA assigned my classification. I *almost* missed being Prime because of my chest size, but the inspector decided to let me slide. Granted, when I turned thirty I got downgraded to Choice, but nothing will erase the triumph of the day when I learned that I was truly a quality cut of woman.
Do you not know how healthy relationships work? It’s not one person admiring the other. It’s two people who are compatible and actually like each other. Try seeking someone you like as a person instead of someone to admire you.
I don’t think you’re as polite and funny as you think you are. You have yet to speak of women as if we were humans beings. We’re not blow up dolls with pulses. We can’t be lined up and arranged by numerical value. I’m not sure why it’s so hard for you to understand and accept that we are sentient, three dimensional people.
“You’re nice but…” is code for “I don’t like you.” Women have to use a soft no for the sake of safety. That’s why women say that. It’s not said because nice men aren’t attractive. It’s not said because you’re nice. It’s not that you’re being friend zoned. It’s that women can usually sense when the man she’s talking to harbors sexist thoughts. Trust me. There are red flags. If you start seeing us as fellow human beings, women might not feel the need to get the hell away from you quickly and safely.
Is there still a boring troll here?
Antidote to boring troll.
Ooh, now we’re on to the Europe is a magical, progressive monolith portion of the morning! Since Wetherby, IIRC mentioned Pounds as currency I’m guessing he’s British. The notion that there is the UK is some highly sophisticated non-misogynist land is ridiculous. Google “lad culture.” Recall that a woman got a bunch of rape and death threats for campaigning to get Jane Austen on their money.
Even if monoEuropelith is so much more progressive than the US, I thought that
If men are compelled by biology to only care about a woman’s looks, it shouldn’t make a difference whether or not a country is progressive.
I smell sock.
Or, at minimum, the smell of a willfully stupid troll.
I’d do more arguing, but I have to get ready for my shift.
It’s because the FDA doesn’t exist in the UK. Quality women there don’t know that they’re quality because they don’t have the Prime stamp on their asses, and that’s how Wetherby was able to secure one for his exclusive ego-boosting use.
I don’t suppose that a change in their moods could have led them to sleep with you. Nah. I don’t think your ego could handle that.
There are like 100 posts in this thread of women discussing what they find attractive in a man, which undfreeland completely ignored to focus on Wetherby and how attractive he must be. But he’s not a misogynist, guys! And he’d never adhere blindly to an ideology!
Can you even hear yourself? You really don’t see women’s value beyond your ability to fuck them, do you?
1) Saying “I’m not misogynistic” isn’t a magical talisman that erases the misogyny in your other statements.
2) You only touted the “benefits of feminism” to men. You barely even mentioned women while you were singing the praises of a movement for bettering our lives. Saying “I like feminism” is also not a magical talisman.
Again, the fact that you view women only as props for your own self-esteem does not mean all men do. Again, many men actually enjoy the company of women for its own sake. Again, you are fucking pathetic.
It’s been explained to you already. It’s almost like you don’t actually want to know.
All of the UK is MISANDRY!
Don’t tell Elizabeth that, I think she might cry.
BAHAHAHAHA! So we can add “fucking ignorant” to the list of your redeeming qualities.
Friendly reminder that bell hook’s name is not capitalized :-)
@Thread, speaking of creepers: if anyone is in the Boston area and would like info about a known rapist/abuser in the fandom and poly scenes, I can pass it along. He assaulted a friend of mine and she’s unwilling to let him become a “missing stair”.
We need some kind of database for rapists, like the one FetLife members have been keeping (offsite, because you’re not allowed to warn people on FetLife itself).
It is extremely disingenuous of you to devote entire posts about random troll comments alongside your posts about AVfM, as though they are in any way equivalent in their influence on the MRM.
Can we put together some sort of a collection to send Woofy the pompoms that he needs to be the very best cheerleader he can be?
Woody, champion of AVfM. He may not be the hero they want, or the hero they need, but he is without a doubt the hero they deserve.
@undefreeland
“I merely wished to present a my point if view, which I feel is relatively unique.’
From what I grasped, it is amazingly cliché. Your conception of relationships read like the 30sec clip of a luxury car ad. All the complaining is about you not being the square jaw dude driving along with his pretty blond wife looking at him adoringly. Your loss if you have internalized all that idiotic mass marketing spiel about what success, love and happiness look like. They are selling you an illusion because they cant sell you the real goods. It should sadden you that not only you see women as a commodity you can grade, but yourself as well in the process. I suggest you grow up. The right car, the right clothes, the right job, the right look don’t buy the love that supposedly is the ultimate validation that one is worthy. Teenagers look for validation, grown-up look for love.
Woody, sweetie, this is getting really sad.
Oh, Woody. *Shakes head*
This site is for mocking misogyny. A lot of the time that means mocking MRAs but it’s not exclusively MRA mocking.
You know that ban Woody for being boring idea I had?
Whatever happened to that?
At least let’s give him a troll challenge. Like he has to provide us with a trivia fact about cute animals. That would make his posts so much more interesting.
I’m going to pull an academic to refute our troll.
First: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/21/1/5.short
International Preferences in Selecting Mates
A Study of 37 Cultures
The entire study is behind a pay wall slash Uni login, but I have access.
From the abstract: ” Multidimensional scaling of the cultures yielded a five dimensional solution, the first two of which were interpreted. The first dimension was interpreted as Traditional versus Modern, with China, India, Iran, and Nigeria anchoring one end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland, and Sweden anchoring the other. The second dimension involved valuation of education, intelligence, and refinement.”
In short, the study found that they could distill the results into five axes of attractiveness predictors, which for the most part, varied widely between countries, cultures and time. The only axis they could find any consistency with was the value attached to earning potential and physical attractiveness, with women valuing resources and men valuing physical appearance.
However, when you take into account that most of the countries that provided data for that particular axis are industrialized and patriarchal (money is a value system in and of itself, the value of a person is based on how much money they obtain, masculinity is affirmed by money, the socialization of which is hard for even feminists and others aware of the influence to resist) , you start to question their assumption that it is innate or biological. Indeed, one of the studies in their meta analysis refutes the ‘innate biological’ assumption.
Female Status Predicts Female Mate Preferences Across Nonindustrial Societies: http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/41/1/66.abstract
Basically, in non industrial cultures that are less patriarchal, where men are less socialized to view their value in contrast to women and femininity and base their value on their ability to obtain and keep both money and women, women value men’s access to resources less.
“Domestic authority is associated with greater importance placed on appearance relative to resources, whereas ritualized female solidarity is associated with lower importance of appearance relative to resources. ”
Women with power and access to resources of their own (or who live in a society or in a way that does not value money for money’s sake) don’t care about whether or not their partner is ‘rich and successful’ and so they value physical and personality traits more. In other words, how much women value access to resources varies widely!
tl;dr Traits that people consider attractive vary widely across countries, cultures, time and individuals! Troll is full of shit :D
Poor baby, he’s sitting there singing I Want You To Want Me at the top of his lungs in Elam’s direction and does Pauly even notice him? No, he does not. Woody has been fanzoned.
This is vomit inducing, and yet, vaguely funny:
“The admiration of a beautiful woman brings about the most sublime and joyous feelings in life. To experience it frequently, and uncomplicated for prolonged periods… I can’t even imagine such bliss.”
Yeah um, “uncomplicated and for prolonged periods…” **snicker**
Also, how would you know admiration from a beautiful woman brings the most “sublime and joyous feelings in life”? You admitted you can’t even “imagine such bliss.”
I wonder if he knows most women don’t have time to sit around all day carrying some insecure guy’s delicate ego in her hands like a baby chick. Christ, how boring.
In the meantime, what do you do when you go home with this dream woman and there’s no guys around to envy you for being with her? What do you do then? Can you reassure yourself that she will feel compelled to stay by your charm and wit? Can you give her mind-blowing sex? Does she take you out, knowing all her friends what to sleep with you? Or will she realize you don’t see her as fully human when you just stand there staring at her with drool on your chin in the middle of your living room?
I just want to know how these guys think this shit works. They never seem to get past the standing around and being envied by male peers portion of their fantasies.
That sex unfreeland referenced earlier sounded totally unsexy. Like, the women were feeling a bunch of negative things, maybe fustrated and then, “Oh hell, why not have sex with this loser, he’s already here.” I’m sure they didn’t call him back the next day.
Isabelle, seconded. Does anyone remember that Good Charlotte song with the chorus that was like GIRLS DON’T LIKE BOYS, GIRLS LIKE CARS AND MONEEEEEY?
Because Undfreeland’s point of view is roughly as sophisticated and original as that.
So whogoesthere (WGT) thinks: If society removes all of the social pathways to attaining such a beauty, such as making prostitution illegal,
It’s so rare we see someone so unabashedly advocating for child prostitution. Recall that his rant is about a high-school student, and how such women are “The most desirable of women”, whom “every man wants”, and whom the lack of “access” to will lead to “understandable” sprees of killing*” because men are getting to fuck such “treasures”, because prostitution isn’t legal.
QED, women of that age must be allowed to work as prostitutes, for the good of all.
I wish that was more hyperbolous than it seems; all the snark I could muster still doesn’t do much to reduce the fundamental lack of empathy and humanity in the parent comment. WTG is one evil bastard.
This is also the easiest way to tell rigorous evo psych from pop evo psych; is there even the barest effort to make sure that the ‘innate’ traits being studied are true across cultures? No? Welp, boom, null hypothesis.
And it holds double-true for pundits. How can you tell me this is universal if you can’t even convince me that 51% of the world believes it/acts that way/likes that?
re senior citizens and fucking: Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy were married for… 60 years? I think it was was when Cocoon came out (they were in their late 70s, early 80s) someone asked about their sex life. As I recall the reply it was, “well, it happens a bit less now, and it takes a little longer to get going, but it’s still really good.”
(I hope this is the right thread, if not it’s related).
Jo: 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.
I think it’s the basic indefensibility of the proposition. When you reduce the arguments to their core; they are reprehensible.
So, since they can’t dazzle us with brilliance, they are left to to bafflement and bulshit.
. 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.
Everytime (I mean EVERY TIME) the bullshit of “the sexual marketplace” comes up, I discover that I was some sort of ungodly gorgeous dude in my youth.
Because 1: I was poor as fuck, and 2: still having sex.
Therefore (as explained to me) the only way I could have been getting any is that I was so beautiful the women couldn’t resist (only a lot of the women I was interested in, said no).
Here I thought it was that I wanted to have sex, they wanted to have sex, and we chose to have sex with each other.
Hell, now I’m going through the studies in that meta analysis and it’s a freaking gold mine. Look at this one!
Stepping Out of the Caveman’s Shadow
Nations’ Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/10/1176.abstract
“Both studies show that gender differences in mate preferences with presumed evolutionary roots decline proportionally to increases in nations’ gender parity.”
Whelp. There you go.
Here’s another that cited that first study! And then I’ll stop, I promise.
The Big, the Rich, and the Powerful: Physical, Financial, and Social Dimensions of Dominance in Mating and Attraction: http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/3/365.abstract
“In Study 3 (N = 124), the authors surveyed romantic partners in monogamous relationships and found that although aspects of a partner’s dominance—financial for women and social for men—played a bivariate role in relationship satisfaction, agreeableness was the strongest predictor of current and future relationship satisfaction and the only significant predictor of relationship dissolution.”
Whereas, the admiration of average/unattractive women doesn’t count. They don’t bring in as many $MaleEnvy$Dollars on the commodities exchange.
I don’t understand this relationship dynamic constantly being touted as ideal by MRA/PUA/MGTOW, where they insist on being worshipped as a god by the hottest believers. Relationships don’t work like that. If anything, a relationship magnifies your flaws and weaknesses. You can’t truly be intimate with someone if you’re always insisting on your own perfection and keeping the other person at arm’s length so they can gaze adoringly and uncritically upon you. The ego bubble becomes like a third person in the relationship, constantly demanding to be fed and validated and stroked. It’s exhausting.
@pecunium – that skeeved me out too about the OP, and what’s more, legalizing prostitution wouldn’t solve the frustrations of incels. It’s not about physical release or companionship, it’s about status. They want the validation which comes from being in control of (and carelessly “spoiling”, to use WGT’s gross terminology) a beautiful, scarce object. Paying someone for sex wouldn’t provide that status boost, since the woman is getting something in return. For a misogynist, that’s humiliating. Sex has to be won decisively, with scorched earth and lamentations for the loser, or there’s just no point.
Here’s Woody’s cheer team. The M stands for “men”, naturally.
@ cloudiah
He’s the one on the far left making this face —-> D8<
Unfreeland sounds like an R. Crumb cartoon come to hideously unfunny life.
The discussion about what is actually attractive to people (as opposed to culturally induced fever dreams) reminded me. Several years into our marriage, my husband revealed that one of the things he found most appealing about me was that I was entirely satisfied with my life. Apparently, some people have this idea that their lives are incomplete without a partner, and they’re waiting for their Missing Piece. He found it powerfully agreeable that I both liked the life I was living AND wanted him to be with me. How about that?
undfreeland strikes me as someone who really should have taken into account the First Rule of Holes at least a day ago. Then again, someone with enough self-awareness to appreciate when that rule needs to be followed probably wouldn’t have half the beliefs being professed here.
(I doubt I need to define it to most people here, but the First Rule of Holes: If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!)
And vice versa. How can you be intimate with someone if you insist on them always maintaining grooming and presentation so that you can kid yourself that the other person is some kind of fully dressed doll that you can admire or play with as you choose rather than a person who is often less than ready for a photo-shoot.
(Though there’s nothing wrong with suggesting a quick encounter with a toothbrush as a good idea when sexual intimacy is proposed after a long sleep. Uncombed hair is one thing, morning breath is quite another.)