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.
Libertarianism tends to say that the only laws that can be enforced are those that preserve the status quo and government should be essentially powerless to alter the status quo. So, it’s no surprise that it would have some appeal for middle and upper class white guys.
As to the subject of the original post’s premise about violence, I wonder how U.S.’s near historic low levels of violent crime these days jives with the notion that feminism and a woman’s right to control her sexual destiny are destroying our social fabric or whatever.
On the subject of suitors – possibly a Saville Row, particularly if they are MRA Suitors.
This idea that males are given to irrepressible fury by not getting what they want puts men on the level of particularly unsocialised toddlers.
The other point is that these guys seem to miss is that guys can be virgins too and that virgins of either sex are often completely unaware of how to actually please the other sex.
Once again, catching up with a thread the morning after…
Oh, gosh, let’s not even get into this. I mean, we wasted at least a third of the semester in my Intermediate Microeconomics class trying to hammer out that particular riddle. Is the Keynesian school correct, and government stimulus is needed to provide every Nice Guy with a HB8 or greater until the economy corrects itself? Or should we rely on supply side theory and give massive tax breaks to all the feeemales until they deign to give male consumers the sex they so fervently desire?
I’m still torn on my choice of term paper. I was really tempted to study “The Hard Slut Dilemma” but instead pursued “The Cock Carousel: An Economy of Scale.”
I love how you say that like it’s a bad thing.
Yeah. This.
Sarah I’m finding you comments interesting today…
“Undfreeland, if the “solution to that” involves challenging the cultural patterns of sex as a commodity, guilt-free sex for women, stopping the pressure to have frequent-wild-with-hot-teenagers sex for men, body acceptance and leaving aside the glorification of impossible female beauty, etc., I think you can count most feminists in. And this includes making these fellas understand that the world does not owe them hot girls to have sex with, so their frustration only originates in their entitlement.”
I agree with that, there is too much emphasis on so-called “hot women,” and men will find more success if they choose partners according to how well their personalities mesh rather than how much the girls’ bodies conform to media promoted cultural norms.
This goes the some way for women as well. The situation is that roughly 70 percent of heterosexual women and men want to pair off with the top 20 percent most attractive members of the opposite sex. Even when an average man or woman is attracted to an average potential partner, there’s a good chance that person is holding out for someone more attractive. This is especially true in high school or college where people are more likely to try to pick partners that impress their friends.
“I’m sorry to break it to you, but all that “dating market” “settle for below average” “low status” “high value” and all that college-movie-crap is not real, and quantifying fuckability-traits seems to be one of the things making these guys feel so cheated and frustrated.”
I agree in that accepting the media promoted cultural standard of what is attractive creates al sorts of these problems, and people needlessly miss out on great relationships based on personality compatibility.
“As for the “nice guy fixation”, I am sure that there are many sexist douchebags out there having regular sex -the kind puas fantasize of becoming-, and I don’t think anyone likes them here either. I guess the nice guys just make it too obvious in their complaints how fucked up their worldview is.”
If no one likes those sexist douchebags, why are they able to have regular sex????? This is why many women have to take a hard look at who they’re attracted to. I’m not saying that anyone should sleep with anyone they’re not attracted to, but many people should take a harder look at who they find attractive and why.
When women complain about the men they’re dating being jerks or “All the good men are married or gay!” (This was a very common complaint in the 1980s & 90s just before the internet), they need to take a closer look at who they’ve put in their friendzone.
“I just want to clarify that I never said men had any kind of right to women’s bodies.”
Of course not. No one outside of an incel rant says that or believes that. However it is feminist dogma that any man who feels frustrated by lack of success with women or used the word “friendzone” feels entitled to women’s bodies regardless of how she feels about that. Men are not allowed to desire sex until given permission by a woman.
“As to the recent discussions about “nice guys.” I do struggle to understand feminists’ very harsh critique of them I’ve rarely met men who felt more entitled to women’s bodies than those who were actually very successful with women due to their looks. And these regurally laid men certainly did not posses the respect for women that nice guys also lack.”
That’s because when women find them attractive and give them permission, they ARE entitled.
Flying Mouse wins the internets today!
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most thin, beautiful, virginal girls for the greatest good of every Nice Guy.”
– John Maynard Keynes
“The avoidance of holding Nice Guys responsible for their misogynistic and entitled attitudes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward.”
– John Maynard Keynes
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_maynard_keynes.html
Keynes totally got the plight of the Nice Guys!
Sigh. So, undfreeland, which is it? A terrible world in which women aren’t forced to depend on men financially anymore, or one in which we’re all gold diggers? You don’t get to have it both ways. There is something seriously wrong with the character of men who take issue with the fact that they can’t force women to be with them.
Regardless of the fake facts, figures, and anecdotes men like you throw out there, most men don’t make a lot of money, are not super attractive, and still most of them have at least a girlfriend or two in their lifetimes and get married. You guys can’t whine about there not being enough “10s” to go around on one hand and then whine that women get to judge you in some shallow way back.
Regardless of how many antiquated ideas men like you still want to hang on to, or how “frustrated” you get, or how violent, the days of men cornering the market on getting everything they want at the expense of women who don’t get any choices in the direction of their lives is OVER.
Learn it, know it, live it.
tea, it seems that the average guy who has one or two girlfriends and then manages to marry would be a happier bloke if his limited spouse choice was not limited to a woman who had her “wild phase” that was easy to accomplish given all the willing men, many far more attractive than this dude she settled for. The MRAs say the guy is a chump and she is a used up alpha widow who rode the carrousel while he lived in a sexual desert. Amazing huh?
“an array of suitors”
Well, if a woman is out to get laid with no other expectations, yes, far more than men, a woman can ‘accomplish’ that. But that is only because men are so easy. Not all men all the time of course, but enough men to make that reality possible. But so what?
@ weirwoodtreehugger 😀
My take away had nothing to do with saying that men have it so bad. I was merely trying to explain why low status men fail to align themselves with progress.
I am also skeptical that feminism could correct the problem of men being deemed unnatractive, as one poster pointed out. All that is required for a women to be attractive is a reasonable level of physical fitness. Men must be fit, tall, have good facial structure, style and economic status. I have seen feminists denegrate fat shaming, definitely a positive thing as many women, even if perfectly healthy, are not super thin, but I’ve never seen anything said about male beauty standards. In fact, what I frequently observe is feminists distressing over men’s preference for thin women, and then asserting a woman’s right to be attracted to whomever she chooses.
To be clear, I am not saying women shouldn’t choose who they have sex with, just that nothing is really going to address the sexual non-existence of low status men.
As for women not having a lot of male attention, if they do not, it is either because they are unnatractive, do not go out much, or are oblivious.
Because women are a hive mind and have the same ideas of what attractive is. /sarcasm
How would you explain my one uncle being happily married with kids, even though he’s gone through his entire life with the physic characteristics of a bearded Pillsbury Doughboy?
It’s almost like my aunt still liked him!
Physical, not physic.
Typing, what is this typing?
Seriously dude?
Seriously dude?
God, how I wish some dudes spouting BS like this like it’s gospel truth could be a woman for *just one day.*
“I am also skeptical that feminism could correct the problem of men being deemed unnatractive” aaaaaaaand “as for women not having a lot of male attention, if they do not, it is (…) because they are unnatractive”. Ok I’m done LOL. Go cry somewhere else about the unfairness of the “dating market” you jerk.
Tealily, as I made clear, the liberation of women has been a good thing, but to deny that low-status men loose out with feminism is ludicrous. It’s entirely possible that you don’t give a shit about that. You’d be well within reason to dismiss their sexual frustration as inconsequential next to the dangers of merely being a woman, the stigma of a queer sexual identity or the downright demonization of transsexuals. Doesn’t make it any less true. Doesn’t mean they’ll magically come around and support something that they are as only harming them.
There seems to be a good bit of MRA/”Nice Guy” thinking that is based on their bedrock assumption that it’s easier for a woman who wants sex to have it than for a man – that, for example, if a woman walked into a bar and asked 10 guys to have sex, there is a much higher probability she’ll find a taker than if a man walked into a bar and asked 10 women to have sex.
It doesn’t seem to matter that women – who would presumably know better than them – say that it’s just not that easy for women to find a sex partner.
grumpy…it depends on what the woman wants. As with everything else in life, some things are easier to obtain than others. The more challenging usually means the more value due to the rarity.
Grumpycatisagirl, I have a suggestion for you that doesn’t even involve non-magical powers. Just for one day, try approaching men you find attractive in a way that demonstrates obvious interest. You may be amazed at the results.
It also doesn’t seem to matter that walking into a bar and asked 10 men if they want to have sex is something I would not do out of concern for, you know, my safety.
<Just for one day, try approaching men you find attractive in a way that demonstrates obvious interest. You may be amazed at the results.
You know, I’ve done that, and sometimes the man obviously doesn’t reciprocate interest. Which is fine. I move on. Funny how you assume that I can’t have ever done anything like that before.
Its a quandary for women. They don’t want sex to be hard to get as it is for most men to get. Thats understandable as life has enough challenges. But the always-willing supply of men also brings ‘collateral annoyances’ and those are the bulk of dudes who a woman prefers would not approach her at all.
Why is undfreeland shitting up a thread again with his bullshit? Sorry you can’t get a date, duder, but that’s not the fault of feminism.
True, its not feminism that causes a lack of dates. Its the handful of dudes who know how to work feminism better and thus have rotations going.