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.
serrana, that mammoth has all the cute!
WWTH, ow. Reminds me, I need to trim the overlords’ claws here, too. ::gulp::
TMI time:
Corner of the mouth, where the lip tucks in, and the line of the jaw up to the ear … or just looking at him when he’s quite absorbed in doing something (I love sitting watching while he’s doing carpentery). Hair hanging down, little frown maybe …
Even the way his moustache is so bloody tickly that it’s a nuisance. ::scratches nose furiously::
I’m an eye person; beautiful, soulful eyes get me every time. (Also really like how my husband ‘s hair curls a bit when it gets longer).
And I like geeky guys (being a nerd myself), but they have to be good guys, not entitled jerks with martyr complexes.
Oh, mouths. I could look at people’s lips all day, especially if they’re deep in thought and biting down on their lower lip.
Posting before reading the rest of the comments, but regarding Undfreeland’s assertion about the “array of suitors”, sure, a fair number of men find me attractive. I could get laid every night if I so chose. Hell, I LIKE when I’m able to get laid every night (my last relationship). There’s just one problem, one thing that stops me from going out and seeking a random dude to have sex with or accepting the advance of a random dude…I like to live; I like to not be raped. You say it should be easy for me to laid whenever I want by virtue of my gender and the fact that a fair number of men find me attractive. Yet I’d like to get laid every night, but have only had sex four times in the last four months. The men I trust enough to have sex with are simply not available all the damn time (nor are they obligated to be; thing called life and all). As for other men, I can’t trust that they won’t fucking rape me. So no, asshole, it is NOT easier for women to have sex than for men. Heterosexual men might find it harder to find a willing partner than heterosexual women, but when they do find one they generally don’t have to worry that their chosen partner will rape and/or kill them; in fact when het men do find a willing partner, they’re pretty much guaranteed to enjoy the experience whether the woman does or not. Hell, if I was guaranteed to get an enjoyable experience, and be guaranteed not to face violence, I’d do most of the approaching, and happily say yes to almost any approach from the opposite sex, too. But that’s not my reality, so I rarely approach, and rarely say yes to anyone who approaches me.
Yes to butts! I’m definitely a bum-looker.
I look at just about everything when I find someone attractive, really. Once spent a whole day at the office being distracted by how sexy a coworker’s shoulders looked in a particular shirt. I am totally OK with this part of my personality.
(But women aren’t visual! Because if they were they might not find me attractive, and that’s not OK!)
Eyes. Dark clear eyes. Eyelashes.
::fans self::
Alex,
Yep. Women are not guaranteed to get off with a guy on a one night stand and it really isn’t worth risking your life with a stranger to take one home, though I have friends who did back in the day. If that isn’t a testament to how much women want and enjoy sex, I don’t know what is.
That bit always makes me laugh (scornfully, of course). ::looks at folders full of pics:: Nooo, not visual at all.
… Or should that be “binders full of men/a man” if in proper Mittens mode?
My preferences have become much simpler over time. I just like femme women these days, especially with cute faces and long black/brunette/blue/red/pink hair.
Cassandrakitty,
I almost wrecked the car once because a guy was skating shirtless down the sidewalk.
Like I said, shoulders…
Sometime later, my husband introduced me to him. They went to school together. I was so embarrassed I could not make eye contact. I wanted a ninja smoke bomb in the worst way.
I am not of the smooth people. I am of the awkward, runs into door frames to escape talking to others people.
I desperately need a grappling hook gun for escaping awkward social situations and by that I mean ALL social situations.
I’ve had to interview someone I find ridiculously hot. Luckily I am one of the smooth people, but I will admit that I enjoyed that experience a lot more than the average interview.
…I’ll second this.
:: scurries away out of shyness ::
Fucking christ, Undfreeland,
The only men I have slept with more than once have been men I felt safe with (hint: the only men I feel safe with are men who respect me), and the safer I’ve felt, the kinkier the sex. You. Lose. But thanks for admitting you were an asshole to a woman you slept with. You definitely sound like a person whose opinion on dating is something we should give a shit about.
Gosh, high school really changed since I was a kid.
I even look at the crotch on men to assess the dangly bits (discretely of course – I’m not an asshole). In fact there may be a picture saved on my desktop right now that I only saved because the celebrity in question was wearing very tight jeans and that’s the only time I’ve ever seen him with an obvious bulge.
I’m neither smooth nor really awkward, but I’m grateful my sangfroid’s never been tested that way. It was weird enough the one time I sat on a train next to a guy who had hair very much like Mr K’s, and I kept catching corner-of-the-eye glimpses of it.
I just started a “men’s knitwear” Google timewaster and was reminded of this: a photo or a dude’s outfit in meatspace might be “yes, that’s nice”. It’s only when I’ve converted the photo to a portrait, or considered what the dude’s outfit would look like on Someone Else, that it becomes OMG COLD SHOWER NOW.
I went to an all girls high school so maybe there’s something I’m missing, but I’d always had the impression that mixed high schools consisted mostly of long periods in class occasionally interrupted by sports and bullying within mostly same-sex groups, rather than being like a scene from Boogie Nights.
I think a satirical piece by you along these lines would be really funny. Only trouble would be the misters and their chronic inability to recognise satire would take it as an instruction manual.
Ooh, knitwear. The reason I prefer knitwear to woven shirts on men is 100% about the fact that it tends to show off their bodies more effectively.
(Suits are an exception. Suits are nice.)
Likewise!
Pretty much.
I don’t recall any sexually charged anything at high school, and there was a total lack of BeautifulPeople(TM).
I looove women who wear knitwear. Especially when it includes knitted beanies. :3
I mean yeah, teenage hormones, presumably lots of people are horny, but I’ve always suspected that most teenagers (and college student) think their peers having a lot more sex than they actually are.
When I first met my lover (not to be confused with my boyfriend or the gentleman I am flirting with) he was dressed as an Egyptian cat. This made sense at the time. There were a couple of sessions of peer rope type stuff, but the first time we did anything serious together was at an all-night fetish club. I wore a black velvet jacket with brass buttons and epaulettes; he wore a tutu. And a corset, and eyeliner, and probably stockings. And then he tied me to a bench and flogged me and I cried and apparently we were going for about forty minutes although it genuinely felt to us like ten.
Mmm. Eyeliner and stockings and nail varnish. Goth boys who dress femme. Lips and eyes and hands. Long hair. Being visibly subcultural. Waists.