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.
Seriously not okay with this kind of threatening comment (Lycere’s). Not okay. I don’t care who you are.
Tee-hee, I always love this old chestnut. I’m a pinch under 5’7″ in my sock feet. When my husband forgets to stand up straight, I am unambiguously the taller of the two of us.
So what’s the deal here? Are people maybe attracted to traits other than height? Are people sometimes attracted to traits that don’t fall under the commonly accepted “must be this __ to date” criteria? Is my husband actually six foot three and has spent twelve years walking on his knees just for giggles?
Or – my good dog – is my attraction to him based on some kind of nefarious mind trickery? Is he one of the few, the proud, who has figured out how to work The Feminist System? Is my whole married life a lie?!!! Oh, the huge manatee!!!
How much does anyone want to bet that the people that think society “owes” them opportunities to have sex claim that they want less government, too.
Why would any rational driven over-acheiving independent person want more government?
Welcome to involuntary fight club, where your desire not to be punched in the nose is not more important than my right to punch you.
It is more important. You don’t have the right to another person’s body. Not ever.
This is the most disturbing comment I’ve ever read on here. That’s a pretty high bar to clear.
Because ordinary people sometimes need the Leviathan to protect them against lesser predators. Being industrious and clever is no protection against getting screwed by someone with more power than you.
Wow. You really walked right into that one, Taino.
Can Lycere be banned for being a horrific violence and rape apologist?
“And how dare you suggest that someone’s desire to say “No” is more important than someone else’s desire to have sex with that person.”
I honestly got up to this point and thought it was sarcasm. Like “how dare you want your “no’s” to be a right! How could u possibly! It’s just a temporary inconvenience to fuck someone who has the right to your body!” So grotesque, seriously what’s always “between the lines” in any MRA rant. Kind of refreshing actually. He just said it! THANK YOU!!!
And if fucking me was ever considered an inconvenience to someone – I would not WANT to fuck said person.
The TopGuys™ should band together and go tell the NiceGuys™ to back off! That is how order and safety is maintained in the so-called ‘dating market’
Lycere, holy sloth. What kind of garbage was that? If someone’s right to remain alive shouldn’t take priority over someone’s sexual desires? Did you read what you just wrote?
Seconding grumpycatisagirl. Threats are not okay, no matter what your circumstances might be.
I’m not sure what country you’re in. Where I am in the US, the “big government” New Deal lifted us out of the great depression and built the middle class. Since the Reagan administration the New Deal has been slowly dismantled in favor of privatization and bootstraps mentality and lo and behold, the middle class is diminishing more each year and we’re approaching gilded era levels of income inequality.
I would say wanting more government in some cases is completely rational. Not when it comes to a person’s sex life, but there are plenty of times big government is a good thing.
WWTH, I was more disturbed by this.
“Let me qualify that. Incels having sex with themselves instead of committing murder is better *for the potential murder victims.* It’s not better for the incel themself.”
Murdering people is better than masturbating.
What a bizarre thing to say!
In a pre-feminist society, low-status men have no chance of persuading any woman’s father (or male guardian) to allow a marriage. Women with no male guardians tend to wind up in convents or brothels or working as rich men’s servants, so they aren’t available for marriage either.
In a feminist society where women are allowed control over their own lives, low-status women are free to marry, and for that matter it’s not unheard of for a high-status woman to fall in love with a low-status man. (I don’t know if you’ve read Elliot Rodger’s manifesto, but in it he complains long and bitterly that “low-status men” are able to find girlfriends when he isn’t, and somewhere around page ninety million he calls for a return to arranged marriages. Under the assumption that his parents would be able to buy him the sort of match he felt entitled to.)
“Magically” is the wrong word here. I’d say “through epiphany”. Maybe people like that will have an epiphany and say, “I’m sexually frustrated, but blaming high-status men and low-status men and feminists for my problems doesn’t solve anything. If anything, it makes the things worse. I should focus more of my energy on improving myself, or on pursuing non-sexual activities that I enjoy.”
“Why would any rational driven over-acheiving independent person want more government?
I’m not sure what country you’re in. Where I am in the US, the “big government” New Deal lifted us out of the great depression and built the middle class. Since the Reagan administration the New Deal has been slowly dismantled in favor of privatization and bootstraps mentality and lo and behold, the middle class is diminishing more each year and we’re approaching gilded era levels of income inequality.
I would say wanting more government in some cases is completely rational. Not when it comes to a person’s sex life, but there are plenty of times big government is a good thing.”
This^
Lycere:
Yes it is.
You’re an entitled asshole. Fuck off.
Does anyone think Lycere could be GGG? Maybe I’m just being hopeful. I hate to think there’s more than one of him.
Was Taino always a troll? I seem to remember this poster making pretty innocuous comments in the past. Now all of a sudden zie has turned incendiary and creepy.
I don’t think GGG recognizes trans people at all, WWTH. They are every bit as creepy as GGG though.
I think Taino is one of those trolls that start out semi-OK, but were never really here in good faith.
Oh absolutely! I meant the whole comment was the most disturbing thing I’ve seen on here. I just couldn’t bring myself to address beyond ‘wow that’s creepy’ so I didn’t bother quoting.
@Lycere:
Go fuck yourself, your biological needs don’t trump the bodily autonomy of others, or else you could murder and eat the guy in front of you at the DMV because you were hungry and didn’t want to get out of the line.
So, again, in all the senses of the phrase:
Go. Fuck. Yourself.
I can just see it. Suddenly the talk goes from the beauty of pure capitalism or the invisible hand of the free market to “from each according to their hotness, to each according to their boners.”
Also, I totes remember Taino being reasonable.
So, what do you guys think the odds are that MRAs are going to try to use old nyms of legit posters on the site to try and get away with horrifying bullshit?
Pretty slim, actually. Most of them cannot maintain a sock without their tells showing.
Yes, misogynist transdude, other people’s ability to say “no” and not be murdered for it trump your desire to get laid.
Cheese and crackers it is fucking awful that you’d argue the opposite.