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.
Nope. Is it so hard to believe we’re skeeved out by your tales of you feigning human emotion in order to trick a woman into giving you the sex? It shouldn’t be, because you’re plenty skeevy.
@wetherby, sound like you take yourself too seriously wetherby
@brooked, It isn’t hard to believe at all.
I also stated that it is not my job to catalog your comments to prove my statements, nor have I asked you to refute any individual claim. Rather, I prefer you don’t.
It is my contention that you are dishonest. I am not going to spend time sifting through your multiple posts and listing the discrepancies individually.
As I (and others) have stated they are there in this thread for anyone to see and many have indicated they do not find you or your statements credible.
If you want to call me a liar or a troll it doesn’t concern me, I stand by my statements and will let your words stand as evidence.
BTW- The assertion that you have no problem with “gay guys” because they decrease the competitive pool of men is really disgusting.
Undfreeland’s a mystery troll, he’s called the Hidden Lie
A master of philosophy, his wealth must wait for Gramps to die
His life is filled with loneliness, his head is filled with air,
For when you reach the heart of things
Undfreeland isn’t there!
Your not unique,
You’re just so full,
Of all common tropes,
Oh tro—oll.
You’re just like half our trolls.
It’s like a repeat troll.
So that’s the sad truth,
You seem unreal,
Because your so cliche
You’re tro-olling.
I really think you’re trolling.
Such archetypal trolling…
(To the tune of I think I was in heaven, buffy musical episode)
undfreeland, you’re the one who said you lie about your life. You said you lie to everyone you meet, and including faking emotions to get what you want. That the only time you are honest is with other highly cynical men, and here apparently.
I actually do believe the stories you’ve told about women you’ve dated as you seem to have no conscience, and see everyone else purely as what they can do for you, or whether they are competition. People who are willing to say whatever other people want to hear can be quite charming, at least in the short term until the lies start to unravel. I even believe that you agree with a lot of the goals of feminism, but only as long as they benefit you. I would also put money on, if you were gay, you being just as awful to men you dated.
I know that people like you assume everyone else uses other people in the same way, only thinking of themselves, because empathy is an alien concept. But let me make this very clear for you – they don’t. You can’t extrapolate how you think to anyone else. You are the aberration.
I mean, if you don’t understand how some of the stuff I’ve said doesn’t fit together piratejenny, then I guess I understand that. Everything is very fragmented, and I have some pretty complex and unique ideas.
But everything I’ve said about my life and the women I’ve slept with is true.
In fact, I don’t think there’s anything there that’s even that hard to believe.
I am complex and unique! Love me! Please love me!
Of course you have.
So you don’t even do English properly.
D’you want a cookie for simply not being a rape apologist?
If you see almost everything in a utilitarian way, you’re just another failure with an empathy bypass.
Nope. You’re projecting again.
You’re never going to get a long-lasting relationship, kid. You haven’t a clue about interacting with other people or even giving a damn about them. Willfully-dead-inside people do not good partners or friends make. Go live on an uninhabited island somewhere, you’d be doing everyone a service.
(Not a wildlife reserve, though. No animal deserves you company.)
@kittehserf, I didn’t say that their definition was too strict, I said they had a stricter definition.Which in this context is the definition “exact in correspondence or adherence to something; not allowing or admitting deviation or relaxation.” As in they don’t allow for any nuance in determining what is or isn’t rape.
But I guess everyone you disagree with has to be stupid too? This seems to be a trend with you.
Undfreeland’s marching song (to the tune of ‘you are my sunshine’, since he believes he is the specialist sunbeam of sunbeams):
My thoughts are complex, complex and unique,
My brain is so bright it blinds you all,
You can’t persuade me, ’cause I’m to clever!
I’m just too smart and too clever for you.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE ME, DAMN YOU! WHY CANT ANYONE SEE HOW SPECIAL I AM?????
Oh, dear.
Your ideas are neither complex nor unique.
As is your ungainly attempt to call me unintelligent enough to “get you” or your complex and unique ideas.
Your words are here as evidence in every comment you have made.
Also, this is the first troll who has focused on me. Is there a badge or something for this accomplishment?
What a strange person you are.
I honestly can’t fathom how you’d get that impression from the last post I made, unless you’re under the impression that it was me who was being offended by my relative’s feeble attempts at negging. In fact, I was happy to tune them out, but tuning out my wife’s justified complaints afterwards (because someone insulting and belittling your spouse in front of you is invariably awkward at best and actively unpleasant at worst) was considerably harder. You know, what with me caring about what she thinks. (Maybe that’s where I went wrong?)
But let me get this straight, since you’re so keen on consistency: I’m fabulously good-looking, wealthy, a sophisticated European (possibly with a faint trace of an exotic accent), but if I have a failing it’s that I take myself too seriously? Does that fit your mental image?
Piratejennie, have a complimentary “I drove a troll up a wall” badge for valorous posting in the service of the hive mind.
I AM A UNIQUE AND BEAUTIFUL SNOWFLAKE
Excellent news, and it couldn’t be more perfectly timed, because I was just about to write you off as a tedious and predictable dullard.
So, whenever you’re ready…?
Seriously dude you are in no way unique or complex. We’ve heard everything you’ve said here a lot of times before. I know you can’t help lying about yourself to us, but at least try not to do it to yourself.
EVERYONE ELSE IS INTERCHANGEABLE THOUGH.
Speaking of which, has anyone else read The Sociopath Next Door? There is an excerpt at that link if you’re interested. I put it with The Gift of Fear and Why Does He Do That? on my bookshelf.
@contrapangloss
Thanks for picking up where I left off. Brilliant 🙂
*stitches badge next to the ones for extreme fortitude in scented candles dipping & Furrinati obedience”
LOL nope. I disagree with lots of people about things. Unlike you, they are not stupid, nor do I think they are.
You claim you’re here to “sharpen and solidify” your thoughts. Perhaps you should have said “take your confirmation bias for a run” because you haven’t taken in anything said to you. But why would you? That would imply good-faith posting.