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.
I doubt they can even get their heads around the idea that someone can have a totally monogamous relationship for thirteen years (and counting) and still enjoy it. In fact, it’s better than ever: when you know someone that well, the emotional intensity is mindblowing in a way that I doubt they could even conceptualise.
But that’s because the sexual side, however intensely pleasurable it might be, occupies a total of maybe one or two hours of a typical week, with the rest spent talking, laughing and generally enjoying each other’s company. Whereas their notion of “a relationship” seems to revolve around a fumbling, deeply unsatisfactory and possibly non-consensual fuck with someone that they don’t even like.
Oh dear God, you poor deluded sap. They were the firm’s clients and I was earning less than £10K per year and renting a single room at £40 a week, which I could barely afford. In fact, that’s why we moved in together so quickly, as she was struggling with her own rental situation and we thought pooling our resources would be a good idea.
And I’ve already said that we first hit it off over the phone, where looks are clearly completely irrelevant.
Many thanks for the belly laugh, but I’ve rarely known anyone be so completely and hilariously wrong in every conceivable way. But maybe you could draw a useful lesson from this?
It made very little difference to me. It was her intelligence, wit and personality that attracted me to her, not her looks. You know this whole “treat women as people” thing that pops up every so often around these parts? If you actually believe in the philosophy behind it (which seems to be a challenge for some people, although I’ve never been able to fathom why), it really does work.
So undfreeland is a lulz troll, right? Please tell me that nobody would write this without chortling to themself about how ridiculous they’re being.
For maximum troll value he needs to fit a “milady” in there somewhere, though.
QFT, with a gold frame and vigorous nodding in agreement.
Well, be fair. The other thing that they hope to get out of a relationship with a woman is the sense of smug satisfaction that comes from owning something that all your friends want but none of them have. So kind of like owning a really flashy, expensive car that can also make you sandwiches.
The part where most women find this idea revolting and want nothing to do with men who find it emotionally appealing will always remain as mysterious and difficult to understand as chaos theory to them.
I swear, there were men around four hundred years ago – a very misogynistic era in Europe – who were less willfully clueless about women (or life in general, really) than these idiots.
I know, they’re regressing. It’s really rather sad. Here, have a lynx grooming a housecat to make you feel better.
http://www.weather.com/video/cat-sneaks-into-lynx-cage-and-then-50214?
Kittieeeeeeeeeeees!
Dude, if you’re going through high school and all you see is a porno, you either have a porn addiction (in which case go get help), you’re about to give a speech and you’re fucking nervous, or you’re in a wet dream.
Wetherby, I suppose you must be exceptionally good looking then. And damn charming to establish rapport over the phone during business calls. However well you hit it off on the phone, it would not have resulted in a romantic relationship otherwise.
People like you simply can not fathom what it’s like to be unattractive. I’m polite and am told I’m funny all day long by women, and they are not attracted to me, nor would I expect them to be. Nor do I harbor anger towards them for not. I, after all, do not find unattractive women appealing.
Attraction is deeply imbedded in our psyches by biology and society. I and many others do not posses traits that trigger it. Much of “game” is bullshit, but being a noticeable asshole in an informal social setting is a way that even unappealing men can, at least in the short term, reach beyond what they would usually be able to pull.
Also, that’s some cheap rent. I’d be set if I could find a place around here that cheap that wasn’t suicidally dangerous for a physically unimpressive white guy.
Fuck, you’re either stupid or should never come out of your cave. Establishing a rapport over the phone is a basic part of conducting business with clients.
Go back to the 1970s with your “pull”, you creepy little slime. I’d bet any woman calling you funny isn’t using it the way you’d like to believe.
Oh good (not really), so undfreeland is racist, too.
How do telesales jobs work? Find out on next week’s edition of As The Dumbass Turns.
Citation needed. Add that to your ever expanding list of citations needed.
@cassandrakitty:
Or perhaps Wetherby is right, and he’s simply deluded. I think the thought process goes:
1) I am not getting female attention
2) Men with money/looks are getting female attention
therefore
3) Female attention is dependent on money/looks.
[insert man’s name here] is getting female attention, therefore
4) He must automatically have looks/money.
I had a phase of thinking that way, but then I grew out of it and realised that there’s a lot more to life. I suppose when you reduce your priorities in life to whether or not you’re getting laid or in a relationship, and it turns out you’re not, then chalking it up to circumstances you can’t control (and you can blame someone else for, bonus!) saves you having to take a long hard look at yourself from an outsider’s perspective and think about what other people might see in you and like, which you can enhance.
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.