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.
Dave, he even describes it as “quote-mining”.. I don’t think the English language is what he has a firm grip on.
Has that dude heard of special effects? And why doesn’t he go after the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes as well: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/salo/
Gosh, looks like it’s only a “pick on David” hit piece. Sadly, it’s incredibly contrived. This reviewer gives the hit piece 1/10 and says “not worth the minutes to read, of which you will want all of them back.”
If I never see the Carpenter version of that film again it’ll be too soon. ::shudder::
Then why is he criticizing you for supposedly defending the abuse of boys?
Is his position that adult men + teenage girls = good
adults + teenage boys = bad?
I don’t get it.
kittehserf: my favourite film version! A friend of mine once suggested that my tagliune should be from that movie – “Whatever it is, it’s weird and pissed off”
weirwoodtreehugger: I don’t even try to figure out how many contradictory positions they hold simultaneously. It’s like the hamsters in the wheel they call a mind have rabies.
takshak, LOL!
I saw that film when I was 18. Only sat through it ‘cos I’d paid (and that was at student rates, too). I don’t think I’d find it so frightening now – just as repellent, though – but I’ve long since gone off horror movies of any sort anyhow.
“When men don’t get the women they want they turn to violence.”
That’s awful to think about yourself and the rest of men.
“This is established all over the animal kingdom and offers a good example about how it applies to humans,”
But humans aren’t animals. They’re completely different. Last I check, women should be with whoever they want because they’re human.
“It’s demeaning and hits a major blow to a person’s sexual identity to not be invited to frolic with the beautiful people.I’m sorry but almost no men go on wild shooting rampages if they have a beautiful female in their keep.”
Keep??? And yeah no matter if they do have a girl or not, they’re still gonna to commit crimes because of certain reasons.
“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.”
No, that’s just you and other people who seem to think that they have no worth in themselves at all so they use sex to make themselves feel better. Most people value themselves.
I’m not doing anymore, the rest is just entitlement, rape apologia and contradicting.
Aren’t sex bots gonna to be VERY expensive? I doubt they would be seen as ‘disposable’ then.
Brittersweet
What an adorable fur ball with legs!
Sorry not rape apologia I mean justifying the shootings.
To these confused boys:
If all the boys only go after the few beautiful girls, naturally there will be an imbalance. Forget about beauty if you feel a need for sex that badly, in this case so badly that you are thinking about violence. Find a girl who, like you, is interested in having sex. Then you just have to persuade her that you are a good choice.
And remember that unattractive girls are much easier to approach than beautiful ones!
kittehserf: I walked out of the $2 showing of “Eraserhead”, the dancing chipmunks were the last aesthetic straw.
The Thing is not really about the monster, it’s about how panic & suspicion make people dangerous.
@takshak: Please try to keep this in mind when your partner says “eat me”
My wife has learned to clarify quickly whenever she asks “Can I have a bite?”
Way to miss the point there dratman
takshak – Eraserhead’s another one I never saw. Dancing chipmunks? Strewth.
I think I’d sooner watch the 1951 film – more fear and paranoia, less gore filling the screen. Also James Arness was the monster, before he got all famous in Gunsmoke. 🙂
fruitloopsie – oh, it’s rape apologia, all right. “Fuck us or else we’ll kill you and we’ll be totally justified in doing so” is all about rape.
dratman you’re gross
Argh, I have to go sit down on the couch for a bit. My knees and hips are staging an organised protest against being on the computer chair. Later!
Why is it that anti-feminists have lower expectations of what men are capable of than feminists? Feminists and pro-feminists believe men are capable of NOT RAPING and NOT MURDERING if they aren’t getting constant sex. Anti-feminists apparently have trouble with this concept. And yet I bet this same slice of the manosphere was ringing with echoes of “not all men!” a couple of months ago.
So far as I can tell, the biggest problem with the incels is they think life should be like a porn movie – a specific standard of beauty, minimal interaction before sex, women’s desire being aboslutely irrelevant, man’s desire being enough reason for sex to occur, sex being about power of the man and degradation of the woman as much as it is about pleasure – and when reality doesn’t resemble said movies they think that’s an indication that something is wrong with reality (and women in particular), not that there’s something wrong with the porn.
The self-pity elevating to self-destruction and taking others with you is a disturbing element. that needs to stop, but sadly most likely won’t as long as people keep divorcing these events from the fucked-up beliefs of the perpetrators.
Why do they elide over the fact that in the majority of ‘in the animal world!’ lack-of-mate situations, the males usually kill the excess males. I mean, if they’re really serious about that…
But really, let’s just randomly pick something to mimic – they have, so I will. How about those ruffs – birds that have a bisexual male with a big territory, a little satellite male who rotates around the edge to mate-steal, and faeder males who mimic being female, including sexually and who solicit the territorials as well as the females.
And everyone’s pretty much happy. Yep. Everyone’s a Ruff.
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.
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.
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.
Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe that sane gun control measures and a more public and disciplined approach to mental health would do much more to hinder shooting sprees than addressing this frustration, but I do believe this frustration should be assessed because it is resulting in aggrieved young men susceptible to manosphere and even racist garbage, and these men will stand in the way of progress. You can’t expect frustrated individuals to be willing participants in the project of progressive modernity. I believe the best way to address this issue is legalizing prostitution along the same lines as Germany. That way, these men can regularly experience sex with women they find decently attractive and will be much more beholden to society.
I’ll take pseudointellectualism for 500, Alex.
Setting aside that all the premises in that wall o’ text are complete piffle, you really trip over your own feet right here:
Sentence 1: The partner’s wealth is important to women but not men.
Sentence 2: Men must approach women.
Sentence 3: Therefore, women have more choices than men.
Do you see how the premises don’t lead to the conclusion? If women are pickier than men (sentence 1), then women have fewer choices (or fewer acceptable choices). If men must approach women and not vice versa (sentence 2), then men can choose any woman they see, whereas women can only choose from the men who approach them, so women have fewer choices.
And none of your hand-waving has addressed the basic problem: If there are an equal number of straight men and straight women and they all want partners, how can one gender have a better selection than the other?
Citation needed.
@undfreeland:
That’s such a mess of bass-ackwards ideas. Let’s start with this “economics of the dating game” bullshit I keep hearing about. Yeah, I’d forgotten how every straight man and every straight woman has identical ideas of what constitutes attractiveness, so the “market” thing is totally an apt analogy. For fuck’s sake, your crap about “above average” and “below average” makes it sound like you’re talking about house prices in an area, not PEOPLE.
And for what it’s worth, it might be easier for your “frustrated men” to not turn off women if they stop thinking of them as interchangeable commodities. If all you care about is something moist and warm to put your appendages in, go buy an apple pie. If you actually treat women as individuals who have their own thoughts, feelings, free will and desires, you might stop resenting them for actually having some control over who they choose to befriend, kiss, fuck or fall in love with. After all, isn’t that exactly what you’re saying you want?
If you stopped thinking about it in such restrictive terms you might realise there’s more to attractiveness than a number out of 10 based on a specific beauty standard.
Where the fuck is my array of suitors? My only suitor dumped me because he didn’t want to settle for me.
Oh but katz, don’t you know how awful it is for men to have to risk the pain of rejection, or settle for somebody who is less than their ideal of physical attractiveness? Because literally NO WOMAN has EVER had to do that. [/sarcasm]
Don’t these guys realise that the sexual revolution was arguing for equality in the sexes precisely to take the stigma away from women making the first move, sex being seen as shameful, rigid norms of dating, etc? Also I’m sensing an undercurrent of “all women are gold-diggers!” to all the stuff about women seeking men who are financially secure.