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.
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.)
Unfreeland:
“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”
‘Nobody understands me!!! BAAAW!!!’
Bitch, please. Most people know what it’s like to be average or unattractive looking. I think almost everyone has crushed on someone who didn’t return their feelings at some point in their life.
Amazingly, not all people are as obssesed with looks as you are.
And no, you’re not polite or nice. In this very thread you bragged about fucking women you treated like shit. You’re just another “Nice Guy”.
“I merely wished to present a my point if view, which I feel is relatively unique.”
Yeah, you’re such a special Little snowflake. Why do you think blogs like this one exist?
MildlyMagnificent: “Joy, laughter, playfulness, the pure silliness of people who are sexually involved, infatuated even, with each other seems entirely foreign to these clowns. ”
The problem with Nice Guys like Unfreeland, I think, is that they dislike women in general. Even if they manage to hook up with a woman they’re attracted to, their misogyny is stil going to taint the relationship.
Much like Woody and unfreeland here 😛
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.
It’s not even that logical. It’s:
1) Everyone but me sucks
2) I deserve female attention as a reward for being the guy who doesn’t suck
3) I am not getting female attention
4) Women must be too shallow/stupid/awful to appreciate me and prefer guys who suck
(insert man’s name here) is getting female attention, therefore
4) He sucks
5) Women suck for liking him
6) Everyone but me sucks
And around and around in an eternal circle.
Unfreeland does not want a real or meaning relationship with a real woman. He lives in fantasy, he has this idea that his reality should match up to this fntasy world and fantasy woman he has created. He wants to be Link and use the Triforce to save Princess Zelda from that “douchebag” Boss at the end. He wants to play out this fantasy script but the real world is not a video game. It is complicated and messy most of the time, there is no Triforce, there is no Zelda and there is not way in hell he can be Link.
Unfreeland,
You’re using women to get a high from being associated with their good looks and calling that a relationship. That’s not respect or admiration. That’s how I feel about a wearing pretty shoes. You are literally treating women as an accessory that boosts your self esteem momentarily. I understand that feeling as I will teeter around in cruel shoes because I like the way they go with my outfit. Yes, with the right accessories and foundation garments I feel ten feet tall and bullet proof. Isn’t that silly? Here’s the thing, the only person I’m hurting with my silliness is me. I’m not using another person as a prop to make me feel better about me.
Women can tell when a man thinks of them as a thing. We know that if you could afford an expensive car to validate yourself, that’s what you’d go after instead of our attention. When you are needy and trying to hide your neediness and bitterness by being awful, it shows.
Meanwhile, you have co-opted the PUA bullshit as a way to make yourself feel better about being shallow and not as popular as you’d like to be.
What are you, like 22? Because you sound like you’ve barely existed puberty and think Judd Apatow movies = reality.
Sometimes people are lonely. Beautiful people can be lonely. Wealthy people can be lonely. Smart people can be lonely. Charming and gregarious people can be lonely. If the biggest problem in your life is that you can’t get enough women who look a way that makes you feel better about you to touch your weenis, you don’t have problems.
…and yes, your comment about poor ethnic neighborhoods was racist as hell.
Here’s the good news: You don’t have to be an asshole. You don;t have to blame your behavior on the lie that “women only like jerks”. You can extract your head from your ass and start doing things to actually make you a better person so that you do not need vicarious validation. Go volunteer. Get a hobby. Further your education. Travel. A great way to feel interesting is to be interesting. Stop trying to use women to do for you what you should do for yourself.
Then maybe you can start fucking people because it’s fun, instead of because it momentarily makes you feel less sorry for yourself.
I merely wished to present a my point if view, which I feel is relatively unique.
Yes, “women are all stupid shallow gold-diggers who love jerks, which is the only possible explanation for why I don’t have a date” is a really difficult sentiment to find on the Internet. Thank you for opening my mind to a whole new world of intellectual insight.
It’s just that Beautiful people, being free to pursue beautiful people, rarely develop fetishes like that. Why would they need to?
Er… a) that’s not the way fetishes work or why they develop, and b) if being attracted to people who aren’t millionaire supermodels is a “fetish,” I’m kinkier than I thought.
Also, quoting Woody Allen is gross. Almost as gross as “quality women.”
I want to add that not all women have the spidey senses to avoid abusers and that even when we do, abusers can be very good at masking their true intentions. Also, some people have never been in a non-abusive relationship or grew up thinking abuse was normal and that men are only mean and possessive because they care. Most people are not perfectly healthy and together or confident. Some people have been groomed since childhood to accept abuse. Yes, you can exploit that in those people. You can become the next user and abuser in the line of users and abusers. You can convince them it’s their fault you treat them like dirt or that you are better than them and they are lucky to have any attention at all.
You can also walk around kicking puppies and pushing children into traffic, if you want to be the lowest piece of garbage you can be. Maybe it will even make you feel momentarily powerful or give you a sick rush. That won’t make it right.
How do I determine if I’m a quality woman? Would my owner be able to take me into the shop to have some if my parts upgraded, if he wants to raise my quality?
@undefreeland
Describing people’s attraction to one another as a fetish because it doesn’t fall into your narrow perimeters of those who are “quality” and those how aren’t is just gross.
I know I’m late to the game but I have a personal story about that moment when you know you’re going to click with someone.
I had been casually talking to, flirting with someone for a few weeks and was comfortable enough to invite him into my house so I could pick up my coat before we walked down to a local bar to meet friends.
While I was getting my coat my cat walked into the living room and started investigating him so I asked if he wanted to meet her. He said sure and I picked her up so he could pet her and she could more comfortably check him out.
He pet her a few times and then asked how old she was, when I answered that she was 15 he blurted out, “Oh, that means she’s going to die soon!” then immediately looked horrified, turned bright red, and slapped his hand over his mouth. For the few seconds I hesitated before I told him that cats can live over 20 years and she was very healthy I thought he might cry.
His reaction was so nakedly human and charming that all the other little things that attracted me to him just gelled and I knew that I wanted to keep seeing him and get more serious about it.
He later told me that he was already very interested in me and thought he had blown it with that one comment.
I wouldn’t add this otherwise but given the content of some of the previous comments, what the hell. He was ten years younger than me, more conventionally attractive, and at the time I was recovering from surgery that prevented me from rigorous exercise so I was at the heaviest weight of my life (so far). I was also working a shit job that I hated while waiting to get into grad school and desperately poor. He was also actively being pursued by a woman younger than him and more conventionally attractive than me, but with whom he had little in common.
I cannot tell you how much I hate using the terminology I just did (conventionally attractive) or that I brought our ages or my weight into the conversation, as if they mattered between us. I just wanted to add to the chorus of voices in this thread trying to pound the notion into some very thick skulls that attraction is not some zero sum game with rigidly defined criteria.
*snort*
BTW, most fetishes develop in early childhood and liking to fuck people you find attractive is not a fetish.
*parameters
Ugh, thanks autocorrect.
I have a fetish for men who see me as a person rather than an ego-boosting device that also gives blowjobs. It’s really weird, I know, but I just can’t seem to get over it.
In case our thick friend doesn’t get my point: the mental and emotional foundation of adult fetishes are laid well before we are old enough to know if we are going to be “beautiful” or not.
Meanwhile, writing off the obvious fact that people’s tastes in partners vary widely as “some people have fetishes” is just fucking stupid. I get it, you want to blame your unhappiness and bad behavior on others. That’s a very human thing to want to do. Personal responsibility is hard. Hard isn’t impossible though. You just need to get a grip on yourself and be a grown up. It sucks, I know. I hate having to kick my own ass when I need it too. But, it isn’t anybody else’s responsibility to manage my attitudes and behaviors.
I share your fetish, cassandrakitty. I have this fetishistic desire for my date be curious what I’m thinking, rather than what everybody else is thinking, when we go out. It must be easier for the Beautiful People, who don’t have these weird proclivities.
Oh also I have a fetish for men who actually listen to the words that are coming out of my mouth and incorporate them into their worldview, rather than telling me how I feel. Bizarre, right? And let’s not even get started on my totally wacky fetishistic preference for men who aren’t rapists.
If only I was a supermodel I wouldn’t have all these strange fetishes.