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 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. 😀 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.