Categories
Uncategorized

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?
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.

2.2K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skye
Skye
10 years ago

“I wish you the best in finding short and unsatisfying relationships with no real intimacy. You deserve them.”
This ^ (assuming the other person is equally deserving)

Cassandrakitty, makes sense to me. Guess you’ll have to get a great job if you want to date a woman and quit if you want to date a man. I wonder how you would explain that work history on a resume. 😉

Skye
Skye
10 years ago

Tessa, maybe you and your SO can have a thumb war to decide who gets to be the wealthy jerk and who gets to be the pretty arm candy
/snark

undfreeland
undfreeland
10 years ago

@Youllneverguess, I have never blamed women for not finding me attractive. In fact, I have indicated the opposite several times.

As to others referring to non-hetero sexual orientations, as I have said, attraction is greatly influenced by society. The overall liberated attitude towards attraction that most homosexual and bisexual people I have known has always struck me, bisexual and pan-sexual friends being amongst the most open minded even when it approaching heterosexual relationships.
I have to assume this is because media is so hetero-normative, that they simply aren’t effected by the same programming.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

“Liberated” means “I’m convinced that they would totally fuck me even though I’m an awful person because I watch too much porn”, right?

We should make this guy into a meme. Anyone have a suitable picture?

Michael McG
Michael McG
10 years ago
kittehserf
10 years ago

I have to assume this is because media is so hetero-normative, that they simply aren’t effected by the same programming.

And yet you’ve ignored a hundred-odd posts where heterosexual people are talking about how they are attracted to people who don’t fit the media’s notion of who’s attractive and who isn’t.

You’re a self-centred moron, I swear.

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

Oh dear, Tessa, did undfreeland not tell you? Everyone is straight!

Color me shocked as well.

Michael McG
Michael McG
10 years ago

Damn! Shoulda refreshed before posting!

katz
10 years ago

Oh dear, he’s one of those “bisexuals will fuck anything that moves” guys.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

The funniest part of that comment for me was that my taste in women is pretty heteronormative, even though I’m not straight. It’s almost like I grew up in the same culture/s that straight people did or something.

(My taste in men isn’t normative in the US, but would be in other parts of the world, so I think we can chalk that up to being Third Culture.)

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

The fact that he even knows the term “pansexual” is making me lean towards “lulztroll” again.

Skye
Skye
10 years ago

But, Kittehserf, most of those are posts from women and undfreeland knows he’s much more objective and realistic than we are

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Also! Judging by this and other conversations about what we’re into here, I’m pretty sure that I’m probably the most shallow and looks-focused regular commenter, and I ain’t straight. Poor undfreeland, what will he do when he figures out that bi and pan people don’t want his creepy ass any more than straight women do?

katz
10 years ago

I’m particularly attracted to my husband when he wears T-shirts. Is that odd? I mean, T-shirts are completely ordinary. And for that matter he is completely ordinary looking. But they are a good combination.

Viscaria
Viscaria
10 years ago

The overall liberated attitude towards attraction that most homosexual and bisexual people I have known has always struck me, bisexual and pan-sexual friends being amongst the most open minded even when it approaching heterosexual relationships.

I… I don’t even know. Thank you?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

@ katz

A nicely fitting tshirt shows off a man’s shoulders, chest, and arms better than just about any other garment. Or, um, that would be my reason for preferring to see the mister in tshirts…

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

unfreeland,
You are not a sociologist, or sexpert. You’re just a shallow guy who thinks the world operates according to your issues. It does not. Yes, claiming that you have to be a jerk or be wealthy and Dirk Squarejaw to get female attention is claiming women are shallow and blaming them for your bad behavior.

Guess what? People who are not model material still turn on their significant others fully clothed. That’s how we get to be naked with other people. First there are clothes and then, there are not because they are in the way. You are free to like what you like and to be as shallow and manipulative as you like. But those are your hang ups, not universal absolutes. Stop blaming the world for your shitty personality. You aren’t the overlooked prize you think you are. You’re a jerk who isn’t terribly clever. You could fix that with some education and viewing other people as something other than an means to an end. Clearly you don’t want to. Cool. Don’t. But stop trying to convince us that you’re anything but too lazy and self centered to do better. It’s not going to work. So, why don’t you run along now? Nobody here is going to validate your sad existence.

duckbunny
10 years ago

Obviously young, obsessed with the attention of women primarily as a source of validation, unshakeably convinced that attraction is a fixed scale, distinctive but unconvincingly natural voice, limited romantic experience, curious interest in arguing with Cassandrasays specifically…
This is a for-the-lols troll familiar with the site.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Actually that’s a good point. If only super hot people turned others on when they were fully clothed, how would enough people end up getting naked together to sustain the population?

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

Cassandrakitty,

It’s almost like I grew up in the same culture/s that straight people did or something.

Whaaaat? How could this be?
😀

fromafar2013
fromafar2013
10 years ago

@ unfreeland

We can read what you wrote.

This guy clearly has an unhealthy and antiquated idea about virginity and youth. I’ll give you that. But the notion that the current dating market could result in serious frustration for men is not without merit.
True, most will not go on a murder spree, as basic human empathy and self preservation simply, won’t allow it. But many will engage in other, more self-destructive behaviors, such as the current trend for young men to completely lack ambition, filling their lives with pot, porn and video games.

Men who don’t get sex are frustrated and lack ambition. Which you strongly imply is a bad thing.

So, what’s wrong with the current dating market? Nothing, objectively. The ongoing legal and social liberation of women has resulted in great things for the economy, science and the arts. However, a natural consequence of this liberation is that women no longer necessarily require men for financial security and many stigmas associated with sexual promiscuity are disappearing. Thus, women are free to select their sexual partners on a basis of pure sexual attraction.

Women having agency and choices in sexual partners (liberation) and don’t seek partners based on financial security alone. But…

The “unfair” aspects of the dating scene arise from this. Still beholden to old ideologies, as we all are, financial success is still very important to female attraction, and the opposite tends not to be true for men. Additionally, men still must approach. So, any socially active women will have a wide array of suitors from which to choose to pair off with. As a result, averagely attractive men with average careers must settle for below average attractive women. An above average male can be with an average female. While the opposite is true for women, and so on. 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.

Women still don’t actively seek partners (contradicts the above, btw) and still prefer men who have money (and also contradicts the above) which results in men having to settle for ‘below average’ women… Because of the above. Which taken together implies that women having agency in sexual relationships is a bad thing because only the most attractive or successful men will get lots of sex and cause frustration in other men. But wait! The first part was how lack of sex means no ambition… so which comes first, sex or ambition? Or is it really only attractiveness that matters?

But then,

The overall liberated attitude towards attraction that most homosexual and bisexual people I have known has always struck me, bisexual and pan-sexual friends being amongst the most open minded even when it approaching heterosexual relationships.

So the queers get to have all the fun, amirite?

Being attracted to people based on more than physical characteristics, must be cause they’re queer and missed all the social programming. TIL, straight people are emotionless shallow sex bot vending machines.

It’s almost like you make no sense, at all.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

@duckbunny

Well, to be fair, I am poking him a lot (because he’s pathetic and I’m mean).

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

Actually that’s a good point. If only super hot people turned others on when they were fully clothed, how would enough people end up getting naked together to sustain the population?

Secret labs expressly for the purpose of breeding average looking people?

Omnicrom
Omnicrom
10 years ago

Undfreeland have you ever looked at a woman and seen them as a human being with mental attributes? Have you ever seen a woman and considered things about them besides “Would I put my dick in that”? Have you ever looked at a woman as anything besides a blow-up doll? Never in the thread have you ever indicated that you saw a female human being as a co-equal person. You have not refuted charges of misogyny, you have merely reinforced how much you dehumanize women by repeatedly and egregiously dehumanizing women.

katz
10 years ago

A nicely fitting tshirt shows off a man’s shoulders, chest, and arms better than just about any other garment. Or, um, that would be my reason for preferring to see the mister in tshirts…

Black T-shirts are particularly good for showing off the arms, IMO.

1 23 24 25 26 27 89