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.
Come off it. Your entire posts have been all “what about the menz” all the time. You are using subtle and manipulative language to place the blame on feminists and women for the misogynistic, entitled, even violent attitude some men have. Never mind that these attitudes existed long before feminism did.
Why would feminism need to correct that “problem.” Feminism doesn’t exist to help men get dates. Why would it? The fact that some men can’t get laid isn’t a problem that needs to be tackled by any social justice movement. That’s not what SJ movements are for. For the record, I don’t expect them to help women get dates either.
You haven’t provided a citation for this. You haven’t provided a definition of “reasonable level of physical finess.” In order for a hypothesis to be work it must be falsifiable. Please define your parameters.
And what women who aren’t what you’d deem physically fit. You’ve completely erased fat women from the conversation as well as men who are attracted to fat women.
You’ve also been erasing LGBTQA people out of the conversation as is typical for those spouting evo psych assfax.
Again, citation needed. Are you seriously telling me you don’t know a single man who isn’t rich and conventionally attractive that is happily coupled?
Where has anyone here ever said men aren’t allowed to freely choose who they’re attracted to? Show me.
People of any gender have the right to be picky about the looks of their partners. However, if you want a partner who fits into conventional beauty standards and you don’t meet those standards yourself you might have a hard time finding a partner. Again, that’s your right but it is not your right to become resentful and violent if you can’t find someone who meets your rigid standards.
See above. Sex with conventionally beautiful women is not a human right.
For about the 100th time, please provide a citation. You are just making assumptions with nothing to back them up. Just because something feels right and true, doesn’t mean it is.
Men who know how to “work feminism” to get dates are causing a lack of dates? No. Ick.
Well right. There are just way more variables involved with who has sex with whom, when and why than the cartoonishly simple “sexual marketplace” theories account for. Safety is a big one.
Riiiiiiight. Uh-huh, sure.
This is not a problem. This is a reality of human subjectivity.
You are really reinforcing the idea that you think of women as interchangeable sets of dick-receiving orifices.
Nope. No feminist has ever argued that men should start having sex with a prescribed quota fat women in the name of body positivity. They argue that fat PEOPLE should be allowed and encouraged to feel beautiful and express their sexuality without being subject to ridicule or harassment. Asking for a basic level of respect and acceptance is NOT the same as asking people to change their sexual preferences for the greater good.
Because it is a NON-ISSUE. No one is owed sex. Sex is not a human right. Making sure “low-status” men get enough pussy to make them feel validated is not a social justice agenda item.
Pure, undistilled bullshit. Stop explaining our own experiences to us.
Do I need to yell at you? Fine. CITATION NEEDED!!! CITATION NEEDED!!! CITATION NEEDED!!!
You are making a claim, pretending it is self evident and not backing it up.
Exactly. *TMI incoming:* I’ve been single for awhile now and there have been times I’ve gotten lonely and horny. I’m no supermodel, but I’m probably attractive enough to get on OK Cupid or Craigslist and find a one night stand in short order. However, I don’t do that. Because there are a lot of dangerous and violent misogynists out there.
Maybe if whiney fedora bros stopped perpetuating misogynistic attitudes and started treating women like human beings we would be more likely to fuck them. As it stands, I’d rather just masturbate than fuck a creepy entitled Nice Guy.
Right. Dating has nothing to do with the priorities or decision of the woman involved. It’s all in the hands of men who know how to “work feminism” on ladies as if they’re fucking wind-up toys.
You’re disgusting.
It seems that the difference being claimed above is that few if any men can “get on OK Cupid or Craigslist and find a one night stand in short order” no matter how attractive they are. Isn’t that known as the ‘double standard’ and why men proactively attempt to avoid women who have engaged in this behavior when seeking a life partner?
Men don’t like women who have one night stands because they aren’t capable of having one night stands themselves? I mean, not only is the second part just not true, but the logic here is bad even by MRA standards.
Totally ninja’d by weirwoodtreehugger, but holy fuck, this is some top level petulant whining.
TIL from undfreeland:
1. Women never approached men ever. (Fun fact: I actively pursued the man who became my only serious boyfriend to date.)
2. Women who are some undefined level of “reasonably physically fit” can have sex whenever they want. (As long as we have absolutely no standards ever) (Also, my array of suitors has yet to materialize, can someone at Feminist Central get on that?)
3. No man who is unemployed or in a low-paying job has ever had sex with a woman ever. (Going to dump my unemployed man friend now because SEXUAL MARKETPLACE)
4. No short man or physically unfit man has had sex ever (I should inform… most of the guys I’ve dated that they dreamed the whole thing)
Oh, and 5. Attractiveness is a simple linear scale upon which all humans can be located as either average, below average or above average. This scale is totally objective and individual human preference never come into play. Factors like personality, chemistry, shared interests, similar values, age and culture are irrelevant.
Um, I’m considered unnattractive when I’m thin too. The men who are generally attracted to me I’m not attracted to and they are few. My appearance is incessantly criticised when I’m thin too. It’s just criticised more when I’m fat. I go out every day. I’m very much aware of attention I recieve.
Taino, you have so many layers of misogyny overlapped in that comment that it stopped making any sense at all. Try deciding which hateful misconception you want to try before writing the comment next time. Or even better, stop being a misogynist asshole.
Also everything tinyorc said. Wow.
Taino:
That’s fine. I proactively attempt to avoid men who are going judge my worth as a human based on the number of sexual partners I’ve had. Because they are invariably insecure bitter misogynists who believe some truly ridiculous things about the female anatomy. I would truly rather be single for my entire life than partner with a man who thinks I’m ruined or sullied because I’ve had an active sex life.
So it works out well for everyone really!
undfreeland, if there were any validity whatsoever to what you’re saying, my mum would not have dumped her handsome, athletic, and abusive first husband, and would not now be engaged to a “lower status” man. He’s overweight and doesn’t make as much money, but he *is* kind, intelligent, interesting, generous, and a gentle man, as opposed to a gentleman. Could it be that women are attracted to things other than looks and cash?
And on the general topic here, I better inform the cute 20-something guy I’ve been seeing that he isn’t really attracted to me, because what handsome young man would want a sexually used-up old slut-hag a decade his senior, who doesn’t look exactly like Angelina Jolie? (Or whoever counts as a 10 now…)
Wait a second – by this logic, Angelina’s an over the hill, used up slut-hag too! Or is it different because she’s rich, famous, and considered to be extremely attractive by current standards?
undfreeland,
If women are no longer financially dependent on men, wouldn’t that mean that low status men who don’t make tons of money actually have a chance now? That sounds like opening up the “sexual marketplace”.
Wtf? No. My point is that men would have an easier time getting laid if they any respect at all for women. This comment just completely made my point.
Not all women (or men for that matter) are comfortable with having casual sex. But lots of women are morally, emotionally, and physically fine with them. However, we must be on the constant lookout for red flags because so many men harbor misogynist attitudes. They can be dangerous. Even when they aren’t dangerous they sure as hell aren’t attractive.
The point is that lots of women would have more frequent casual sex if it weren’t for these factors:
1) Slut shaming is still a thing as evidenced in Taino’s comment.
2) A lot of men behave in ways that are creepy and treat us like meat. It is possible to have casual sex with someone, not want a serious relationship and still view them a an actual human being. Creepy and invasive behavior turns me off a whole lot more than shortness and lack of money, two things that are not actually that important.
3) Violence against women is very common. Even if you’re on the lookout for red flags a previously polite and safe seeming man can turn a dime and become scary. Being alone with a man is a risk we have to calculate.
My contention is that feminism is not stopping guys from getting laid or getting dates. The patriarchy is.
In other what-about-the-menz news, serious unjust misandry happening to all men who are not talented enough to play in the football world cup and feeling frustrated because reasons. AND FEMINISM IS NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
“No short man or physically unfit man has had sex ever.”
Someone inform Peter Dinklage that he isn’t married, doesn’t have children, and doesn’t have a lot of female fans who think he’s sexy! Stat!
I believe that under the Uniform Attraction Rules ™, a man gets Attraction Points for making more money than a woman. If the woman is prevented from earning money, this necessarily makes it easier for a man to earn enough money to receive Attraction Points.
Added bonus: with women out of the labor force, there is less of a labor supply which raises wages and makes it even easier for a man to earn Attraction Points.
So, win-win for the marginally employed, conventionally unattractive man. Not so great for women.
Also, I should add for those unfamiliar with the UAR that Attraction Points can be redeemed for sex with any woman with the woman’s point requirements being governed by the following formula: ((Waist/Hip)/(Age + Partner Count)) * 100.
“Top this all off with the fact that we live in a society whose media teaches young men that a beautiful women is indeed all the validation they need in their lives, all the while presenting an unrealistic and, for most, unattainable standard of beauty, and you can begin to see how extreme frustration could result in young men.”
What a joke the above comment. What about our society through movies, books, magazines that give messages to women about standards of beauty and how a man can validate them? How about the many women that are impacted by anorexia/bulimia. I know so I have a cousin who has had issues with eating disorders and has mentioned to me about the messages women get about standards of beauty. If anyone has any loved ones or friends with an eating disorder, it is a very distressing. How about all the exploitative mens magazines like maxim that have basically thin model type women?
You know as a guy who initially found out about the so called manosphere and mens rights blog I initially tried to keep an open mind. I have always respected men that are truly trying to help such as Michael Kimmel , Jackson Katz, and Rob Okun However, the first time I read avfm and Elam’s blog I detected that these dudes were not trying to solve social/political issues for men such as suicide or depression- these are guys that are bitter because they think they are entitled to sex with every woman. Furthermore, It is this sense of entitlement that can lead to male violence that we saw in Santa Barbara.Also as a Jewish person, I observed a few anti semitic comments form these angry men.
That is why in the last couple of weeks I have been posting at this blog because I feel these hateful misogynists need to be exposed. This blog is good because it has a good support community as well. After I read Michael Kimmel’s book “Angry white men” and with the horrific Santa Barbara murders, and to top it off a hateful conference in Detroit is being planned, I decided I need to help expose and track down these guys mra’s do not like David and this blog because David exposes the truth about these mra’s/pua’s/mgtow they are full of hate and do no good for the cause of anyone human being.
You’re right. I don’t.
In addition to the fact that I have been married to a wonderful man for 28 years who doesn’t fit the criteria for what men who share your mindset think is crucial for attracting women, someone, may I add, who had several girlfriends before me, I find it laughably hypocritical that MRAs/PUAs/MGTOW have no problem pointing to Darwin, biology, and “survival of the fittest” when it suits them, have such a hard time with the fact that they, when it comes to dating, just may be the “unfit” and think that its the responsibility of others to fix that and then threaten potential violence if it doesn’t happen.
Yay, Tinyorc, WWTH, Doug, Contrapangloss, Corgitime & Winter Walker.
I just want to emphasize that the fat acceptance movement has nothing to do with whether anyone, male or female, gets laid. The primary goal are to abolish the discrimination faced by fat people simply for existing and not conforming to an arbitrary standard of beauty. Such discrimination is the fact that fat people (especially women) are more likely to be considered lazy and not hired, are more likely to be found guilty in court (@ least in US where the study was done), are more likely to face abuse simply for going about their lives, etc.
No one cares about whether random guy 01 or random woman 01 can get a date. As another commenter said, that isn’t a social justice issue.
Lycere, not having sex =/= barred from participating in life. And, yes, someone’s ability to say no is absolutely more important than anyone else’s desire for sex. You are not entitled to anyone else.