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.
The faux 70s stuff is possibly the weirdest thing about crustyunderpants. “Chicks”? “Pulling”? That’s one of the things that makes me think he’s a sock: it’s such a pretentious put-on, it has the mark of Mr Al.
The y’all comes and goes, too, and never seems natural.
Nothing except the whininess seems natural with this one.
@kittehserf, Tracy, and piratejennie – Thanks!
@duckbunny – You’re right, the y’all has dropped away! (also, when he used it, he used my least favorite spelling, “ya’ll.” Yuck). It seemed affected as hell to me when he did use it, but I just chalked it up to his general awfulness.
The case for sock is becoming very compelling. I withdraw my earlier assertion and throw my lot in with the veteran commentors. und, you may be a stockinette lulz troll after all, but I still maintain that you are an empty person.
He could be a new troll, who just happens to follow every troll cliche!
Is there a manual out there for “How to troll like a PUA/MRA/Scrotospherian” that they all read?
At this point, I’m just waiting for this thread to reach 2,000 comments. Have we had a thread that did that yet? Remember the first to reach 1000? That was fun, like way more fun than Undies here. He smells like a dirty sock.
Two thousand would be impressive – I don’t remember if we’ve managed that!
We could always cheat with ninja numbers. 😛
That’s a lovely new avatar, Alex. What type of butterfly/moth is it, do you know?
Falconer:
You’ll be fine! Potty training is a little more work at first, but the investment pays off as they become more and more independent. As a single mom I’m outnumbered by them, so it’s been a little more challenging, logistically. If we’re out in public and one of them has to go, then we all go (unless we’re with friends). Also, my boys are both actively rebelling against doing #2 in the potty. They wait till they’re in their overnight pullups and then do their thing during random wee hours (so to speak). That means rushing in early in the morning, at the first sign of waking, to intercept them before they take their pullups off and embark on a disastrous spree. YMMV, of course.
I have to say, though, the inconvenience is more than offset by the pleasure of no longer blowing through a case of diapers a week. It’s like getting a raise!
Re: the unlucky 13, that is the most depressing, joyless list of pelts. Only on the first one does und admit to having any feelings for her. The rest just seem like random alcohol-fueled ruttings. Zzzzzzz.
Undies could always be a Pell sock. He did after all put in a recent appearance.
Jules was another troll that refused to go away and insisted he was the epitome of manly logic yet could never back up his assertations.
Fibinachi: Bit odd why they fixate on you two. Do you radiate some sort of… anti dudebro waves?
I think it’s a combination of being unapologetic in our responses, married to an apparently civil tone (which; as seen with my jibe at undy; the way he reacted it almost felt like I’d set out to play Rope-a-Dope), gets them riled, and then they poke at us, and we tear a strip off of them, lather rinse repeat.
I get more than my share (though a fair number also refuse to engage me, so it evens out in the wash). I suspect being male (and having been in a stereotypically manly profession) and saying they are full of it also adds to their ire. It’s got to be galling to say, “men who act like ‘X’ can’t get ‘Y’ and having a man tell them they are full of shit).
Add my having what they want (a sense of acceptance from a group of women, of varied tastes, and modern feminist sensibilities), while not seeming to really worry about how I am seen… I’m like the Anti-MRA.
Yet when I tell them all they need to do to be in the same sort of place (treat women like people, accept they are allowed to have opinions, etc.) they don’t want to believe it.
Which is yet another reason they want to take me down. If they can do that, then maybe they aren’t wrong after all.
So lessee… going on five years here, and the list of Trolls gone by is getting pretty long.
Cassandra: The new fixation on how unfair it is that pecunium is well-liked here and attempts to get us to change out mind about that is starting to feel a bit sock-ish, I’m just not sure quite which one it is (since pecunium, like me, is a troll magnet).
Who was the idjit who was all upset you didn’t toss me under the bus when I said I’d had violent thoughts about someone who’d treated me badly?
This, “you all like him even though he’s “admitted to terrible things”, just because he says the right things (with the sense that we are such meanies for not giving him cookies and the keys to the liquor cabinet for telling us how totes feminist he is (because it feminism should make it easier for him to get his dick wet), sounds familiar.
und: , I did not thank you for you service. Merely acknowledged it’s necessity.
gain we see you have a problem with the meaning of words in conjunction: If a think is, as you posited, “necessary to maintain our way of life” then it’s deserving of thanks. If, however, you are so ungrateful that you don’t think this is the case… again you don’t have much in the way of moral superiority to be standing on.
Take your pick
I have no delusions about the mercenary nature of the armed forces.
Yes, you do.
I do note that you didn’t actually respond to any of the substantive questions put to you.
So, again, show me where I have said I practiced, or condone, torture. You made the accusation, back it up.
Was that Jules? I didn’t bother reading much of his walls o’text but it was someone fairly recent.
No, I thought that was Erin, Kittehs.
It was while he was still clinging to the “I’m a lady and bestest feminist”, but after he started throwing gendered slurs.
I wondered if it was Erin, but didn’t think he had time for it amid all the screaming and slurs.
There really must be a troll factory somewhere. They all end up seeming the same.
I think it was Jules, but it may have been Erin too. It seemed to really upset them.
@pecunium
It was the chicken loving male feminist hero Erin. It’s odd that trolls whine about unfair treatment when I’m just taking all the posts at face value and I’d argue that’s what most of the posters here are doing as well. I don’t find a man discussing violent thoughts about woman he’s in a relationship heartwarming, but you made it clear that violence is unacceptable and, most importantly, didn’t mention “telling” (aka threatening) your partner about those thoughts. I’m sure what Erin wanted us to do, grill you for damning specifics? Demand you think nice thoughts? He admitted to doxxing someone, insulted people and Did other generic troll activities and was correctly pegged as an asshole (no pun intended). As a side note, the way anti-feminists inevitably conflate “white knights” and that fucking Hugo guy is tiresome and intellectually dishonest as well.
Was it Jules? I thought it was Erin, but they do blur together.
Not to mention that he came on pretending to be a woman to tell us all how nice and trustworthy fellows like him are, you [slur] [slur]ing [slur]s!
@pecubium
Just to clarify, I didn’t have any problem with your comment about that relationship and understood the point about you were making about abuse at the time, even though I’ve forgotten the context at this point. That’s why Jeureins’ attempt at gotcha was memorable, there was clearly no gotcha there despite his vehemence
@pecunium
I abused your name in my last post. Whoopsie. Sorry.
Brooked, no worries. The context was in relation to something having to do with Elliot Rodger, as I recall. I’m glad you didn’t find it heartwarming. It’s not as if I were proud of having been in that sort of headspace. As you say, the context of the admission wasn’t, in any way saying it was a good thing to have had such thoughts.
As I recall it was pointing out thoughts aren’t the problem, it’s actions. I’d be surprised if most people haven’t had violent thoughts toward another person in their lives. I am sure a lot of those violent thoughts are about lovers/ex lovers (or family) because those are the people who have, “The power to hurt”.
So, while I’m not proud of it, I don’t think it’s a cause for especial shame. That, I think, it what got womever it was in such a tizzy.
It’s like interrogation, I know what I could have done. I know what I didn’t do. I’ve got no reason to be proud I didn’t torture; because that’s the least one ought to expect of someone in that role.
The two are of a sameness.
Just FYI, I’ve never had violent thoughts about an ex. I never want to see you again thoughts, sure, but violent? No.
I suspect that there may be an element of male socialization at work in the assumption that of course it’s normal to have violent thoughts about an ex. Which isn’t meant as a slam on pecunium, btw, it’s more that men are socialized to think that is normal and women generally aren’t and that has an impact on the way things play out during/after acrimonious break-ups. Which would have been an interested conversation to have, but unfortunately it was derailed by Erin’s “why don’t you want to talk to me instead you dumb whores?” nonsense.
I don’t know as I think it’s normal. I’ve only had them about the one (and the situation was 1: abnormal, in that I was socially isolated, and 2: was unable to get away, while 3: we were in close quarters and 4: she was being emotionally abusive).
Honestly, I was amused (for some value of dark and wry humor) that the target was me, and not, “see, even the feminist men admit women abuse them”.
What I do think it that if one is going to have violent thoughts, one is going to have them about those who have caused the most hurt/harm. If that’s the case, I’d expect a plurality of those who have had violent thoughts to have them about an ex, or a family member.
And yes, it’s probably the case that more men than women have violent thoughts.
Oh, I have…gaslighting narcissist needs to be hurt the way he hurts others. I’m perfectly happy with this being a sound belittling though.
Pecunium — That Ex? The one I’d be happy to punch on your behalf? (Ok, not literally but you do not fuck with my friends)
What struck me about trolly’s notch count? No “she was hilarious/sweet/smart/interesting”, I mean how do you list out your ex’s that coldly? Besides the assholes who earn nicknames like “gaslighting narcissist”.
Just to grab a couple — friend of a friend, spent too many nights up too late talking, hooked up for a bit but it was just a casual thing, too bad though, we had fun together (and no, I don’t mean the sex, I mean things like marveling at how white the dorm walks are while coming off E)…or the kind, caring, fucking BRILLIANT, painfully funny guy with the wicked fashion sense and Victorian furniture — including the bed we’re in.
Sorry for the TMI.
Duckbunny — I don’t think I properly introduced myself, for shame! Argenti here, I use gender neutral pronouns (ze/zir), what pronouns should we use for you?
Anyone else I’ve failed to greet, by all means, make your preferences known!