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
Argenti Aertheri
10 years ago

Not quite caught up (I’m on the last page finally!) but this…

“I can’t even think of my cats and dogs as interchangeable, their personalities are too unique, let alone people!”

Fuck, my FISH aren’t interchangeable. Certainly not between species, and usually not even among them (I’ll admit, tetras, danios and the like just don’t seem to have individual personalities…so humans are small schooling fish?) Puff? Dude’s personality is bigger than he is, by a lot!

Wetherby — I find a whispered “I love you” works well to judge the awakeness of my bedmate. I usually do it when I come in from my pre-bed cigarette though, something more “good morning love” might be better for AM use.

As for good looking historical people…maybe it’s just that we really only have self-portraits to go on, and his brush strokes make me swoon, but Van Gogh, pre-ear-chop. I’m a sucker for redheads. And, in her own way, Earhart. (Don’t get me started on my thoughts about what happened to her!)

Falconer
Falconer
10 years ago

@Flying Mouse:

You haven’t run into a guy who plays Steven Curtis Chapman songs to you and tells you that you’re his personal gift from the Almighty, have you?

… *runs a mile*

Wetherby
Wetherby
10 years ago

It’s that odd thing where people think that being open and emotional and trusting just makes you a sucker, and that it’s somehow superior to never care about anyone or anything. Same thing we saw when Roosh (IIRC) pretended he was in jail and then made fun of all his readers for believing him and being concerned about his welfare.

In all honesty, I think I’ve given up on more friends for relentless negativity than for any other reason.

Not remotely the kind of negativity that comes with clinical depression – one of my very closest friends has moods so black as to be baffling to those who don’t know her as well as I do – but the kind of ultra-defensive negativity that precludes expressing any kind of enthusiasm for anything, lest it be seen as some kind of “weakness”.

I don’t see it as much now, but it was endemic at university, an environment full of people trying to impress other people, usually in the most hilariously superficial ways. And I’m sure I was just as bad, but I trust that I’ve grown up a fair bit since.

undfreeland
undfreeland
10 years ago

@sparky, playing video games isn’t ALL I do. It’s just what I most like to do. I go put and try to meet woman. I also lift semi-religiously. I’d be a wretch if I didn’t. Unfortunately, my body type means I’ll probably never look how I’d need to pull the hottest women.

Many have lambasted me for finding the best sex to be sex with the hottest women. It makes sense. If I like what I’m seeing while I’m doing it, it’s going to easier to cum (often a chore) I’m also going to be having much more positive thoughts during, if I like what I see.

But, then again, some of ya’ll live in such a state of delusion that you believe ANIMALS have personalities. It’s called anthropomorphizing. It’s childish.

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
10 years ago

@Falconer – It’s kind of heartwarming to see that CP dudebro is a force for positive change in the world after all these years. Look at how’s inspired a desire for physical fitness!

Lea
Lea
10 years ago

I had a step-relative quite like this troll. The next wife, the next mistress, the next car, the next expensive vacation, the next winning hand, the next drink was going to make him happy. He had inherited a successful business and all he did at work was back slap other rich dudes and bully the people who did the real work. He was a liar and a cheat. He was a racist homophobe, an abuser and manipulator. He thought of himself as a ladies man and thought he was the smartest person in the room at all times. He didn’t like anyone past what they could do for him. He’s in his 60’s now and not doing so hot. Last I heard the only person in the family that would talk to him was a younger version of himself who was only playing the part of drinking buddy in order to be the last man standing in the will. Unfortunately for him, most of the wealth has been burned through searching for that illusive happiness. But hey, as long as he’s buying the next drink, right?

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
10 years ago

Darn it. *how he’s inspired.*

Flying Mouse
Flying Mouse
10 years ago

Someone linked Katherine Hepburn earlier in the thread, so I’m hoping that 20’s and 30’s movie stars are OK submissions for sexy historical figures.

Because seriously, Louise Brooks.

Bonus shot of older Louise with Suzy the cat.

She was just awesome forever.

duckbunny
10 years ago

What you’ve just told us is that you are a truly dreadful lay.

katz
10 years ago

…He just referred to orgasming as “a chore.”

duckbunny
10 years ago

Doing It Wrong

piratejennie
10 years ago

@Flying Mouse

That was me and while it may be self-serving I say yes.

And EXCELLENT choice.

Also, thanks for understanding the inner dialogue that makes me reflexively question almost everything I think and say just in case it pisses people off.

Jay Smooth calls his inner voice the little hater, mostly when referring to what prevents us from creative output. That’s kind of how I think of mine too.

fromafar2013
10 years ago

But, then again, some of ya’ll live in such a state of delusion that you believe ANIMALS have personalities. It’s called anthropomorphizing. It’s childish.

Says the sociopath.

Better tell all those scientists studying animal personality and emotion to knock it off, then.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=study+animal+personality&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_vis=1

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=study+animal+emotion&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&as_vis=1

contrapangloss
contrapangloss
10 years ago

Wow. Having an orgasm is a chore? I called it, pages ago! Yay me.

May I reprise?

“My current girl she’s not all that fine!
Why’s love such a chore?
I’ll get their lovin’, don’t need no old girls!
When I’m middle aged!”

contrapangloss
contrapangloss
10 years ago

Also, what fromafar just posted.

piratejennie
10 years ago

Holy cats.

The things you miss when trolls are on moderation.

YoullNeverGuess
10 years ago

Uh, it’s well known that animals have personalities. It’s been speculated that researchers’ unconscious preference for certain types of rat behavior affects their experiments. One researcher likes the calm rats and only breeds those, another researcher likes scrappy ones.

Who would have thought a towering intellect like und would misunderstand anthropomorphism?

katz
10 years ago

Admittedly, if you don’t believe that people have personalities, then obviously you wouldn’t think that animals did.

OT: Does anyone know any funny idioms for “Why are you acting so irritable?” Like “panties in a twist” but preferably something ungendered.

Howard Bannister
10 years ago

Somebody doesn’t understand the word anthropomorphize.

Sure, you can anthropomorphize non-behaviors. But generally we understand that to mean ascribing human motivations to non-humans. And anybody could tell you that most animals are not operating as automatons. They do things differently.

One cat climbs in my lap and won’t leave.

The other rarely climbs in my lap, preferring to sit just out of arm’s reach.

Differences in behavior? Why, can’t possibly be ‘personality,’ that would be weird.

Now, when I say, ‘oh, she’s just shy’ to people who come in? Flagrantly anthropomorphizing. She’s not shy. She’s a cat.

katz
10 years ago

If he thinks orgasms are a chore, he don’t know (how to) jack.

piratejennie
10 years ago

Can we make his troll challenge that he can’t mention women or his sex life at all?

Because hearing about his boner all the time is really squicking me out.

Howard Bannister
10 years ago

Katz, my Italian friends are partial to ‘who pissed in your Cheerios?’, which has a certain poetry to it…

piratejennie
10 years ago

@katz

My mom always asked, “Who peed in your Post Toasties?” but I think the breakfast cereal component is flexible.

piratejennie
10 years ago

Ninja’d by Howard Bannister!

Stupid sleep deprived slow ass fingers…

Wetherby
Wetherby
10 years ago

Many have lambasted me for finding the best sex to be sex with the hottest women. It makes sense. If I like what I’m seeing while I’m doing it, it’s going to easier to cum (often a chore) I’m also going to be having much more positive thoughts during, if I like what I see.

Oh dear God, what next?

Taking a long time to cum isn’t remotely a chore: it’s a good thing. Unless you’re statistically blessed with a partner who orgasms easily, it makes it much more likely that you’ll be an attentive and satisfying lover, or at least have the potential to be one.

I mean, granted, I haven’t picked up even the merest scintilla of a suggestion that you care tuppence about your partner’s feelings (once again, everything you describe is from the point of view of what the media theorist Laura Mulvey would call “the male gaze”), so I don’t expect you to understand this or really care, but for people who do care about satisfying their partners, taking a long time can be an unequivocally positive thing.

This is also why, for me, my partner’s looks are very much secondary to her overall intelligence and articulacy. Sex isn’t a much of a visual thing for me any more (especially not after thirteen years of monogamy: I think it’s safe to say that I’m familiar with every square millimetre of her body by now): it’s just as much a tactile, olfactory and verbal thing. The biggest turn-on for me isn’t to see her mammoth breasts heaving and her breathlessly going “do it to me, big boy!”, it’s to hear her describe what she’s feeling and articulate precisely what she wants me to do.

1 54 55 56 57 58 89