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.
Wait, Nietzsche def had what we call colloquially a “mental breakdown”. Are we calling stuff like dementia mental illness though? I’d call that degenerative. He may have been bipolar but we don’t know. He was a troubled fellow and his mind deteriorated but who the hell knows whether he had a mental illness?
Oh, goddamnit, Young Stalin. Why you gotta be so hott? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Stalin_1902.jpg/800px-Stalin_1902.jpg
I would ride that until he begged for death (but not really because I’m not a rapist.)
Do you really not get the “We are all David” reference with your self proclaimed knowledge of this blog?
Again, with the snark being lost on this one.
Thought dementia was a mental illness. Could be wrong though.
I mean, goddamn, just look at that lustrous hair.
Alright, where’s my vibrator?
THANKS A LOT, CASSANDRAKITTY.
We should talk about hot historical figures instead, it has to be more interesting than more of this sadboner crap.
@ marinerachel
Pretty hair, pretty eyes, everything else is looking pretty good too, and then you remember that he was responsible for the deaths of about 20 million people.
Look at this dude,
Isn’t he fine?
He won’t love you, you’re just like a dime!
Wouldn’t you think he’s the dude
The dude named happiness!
He’ll keep you a month,
And tell you to go,
No time to form any long lasting bonds!
It’s to much work see, he thinks
Sure, he’ll get everything!
There will always be models for his nights,
He’ll be rich and be so very cool…
… Wait. Break from little mermaid, to ask: where are all the pretty young women coming from for him to have a new gorgeous paramour each year.
Annual or semiannual gorgeous paramours sound expensive… So.
Und, he so wants to,
Und he so wants to,
Be a millionaire,
Yes he wants to,
Yes he wants to,
He so wants to,
Be a billionaire.
A wealthy billionaire he’d have to be,
To finance the life he so,
So wants to live,
Oh you know he couldn’t settle for a millionaire,
Because a millionaire’d go broke, with what he desires…
(Stretching everybody wants to be a cat, a bit)
@piratejenny,I mostly just read what David writes, but I always skip the open comment thread articles and stuff.
Does Katherine Hepburn count as a historical figure?
http://encensmagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/hepburn15.jpg
@cassandrakitty, cameras were pretty crappy back then. From personal written accounts, Stalin was terribly pockmarked from childhood smallpox, and he had a withered left arm from a carriage accident, also as a childhood
Yeah, I’m totally buying this latest lie.
This is now just coming across as meta-level boundary-testing crap. Boy Wonder there is going to keep dancing as close to the banhammer line as he can without crossing it, and is becoming more and more nakedly about getting a reaction from us.
Hence his steadfast adherence to the “I haven’t contradicted myself” line while having repeatedly contradicted himself logically and thematically – playing semantic games is trademark intellectual bully crap. As long as he literally has not made two diametrically opposed statements he can claim that’s true, even though he’s made plenty of statements that thematically contradict others. I’ve had this argument when trying to paraphrase trolls back to them – if I change the wording *at all*, even if I’m reflecting back exactly what they said in different words, I get “That’s not what I said!”.
You really aren’t the beautiful unique snowflake you seem to think you are, und. Guys who think they can rationalise anything away with enough verbiage are a dime a dozen on the internet, especially in the manosphere. We aren’t fooled (well I was, briefly, to be fair).
Who invited you to participate in the hot historical figures conversation, dude? Stop begging for attention, it’s undignified.
What, that I read this blog? It’s part of my routine. I love parsing together feminist ideas with manosphere ones, and this site leads me to some interesting reads.
@undfreeland
I am not trying to bait you. You ignore open comment thread articles except for this one?
I imagine most people round here would regard what I describe as a “close friendship”. As opposed to a mere friendship or a casual acquaintanceship, which is what I suspect you’re describing.
Put it like this: would any of these “close female friends” of yours specifically single you out as the best person to call if they ever had some kind of crisis in their lives? Have you ever provided genuine emotional support for a woman that you aren’t related to? And no-strings-attached emotional support at that? Because these are the things that distinguish genuinely close friendships from more superficial kinds.
Cassandrakitty, do I loose my spot in the hivemind if I claim Tesla had a better stache than young Stalin?
@strivingally, thematically inconsistent? Right. I have only one theme. My perception of the truth. If my TONE is different from time to time it could be that I have been in a variety of states during these posts.
@piratejennie, it was a whim. A very productive whim
I’m not qualified to assess the hotness of staches, so I’ll let those who like them make the call on that one.
@Wetherby, No, but I’ve never asked anything like that of anybody else. Nor would I desire to burden someone with that.
Back from my brief, erm, interlude.
Re: moustaches, Salvador Dali’s was tops.
“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Oh, wait. You’re too special to be libertarian, right?
Yes, YoullNeverGuess, Social Democracies are the best way to organize things since hunter-gathering went out of style. I live in society and benefit much by it. Makes sense to pay into it. Equal opportunity is necessary for getting the best out of society. Corporations don’t care about anything but profit and can be just as inefficient as governments.