We Hunted The Mammoth
Over on PUAhate.com, a fellow named Virgil challenges the widely held manosphere notion that women start losing their appeal once they hit their early 20s. According to him, the real turning point comes at the ripe old age of 25 or so. Why? Let’s let him explain — and in the process demonstrate how to use the word “c*ntathlon” in a sentence.
PUAHAte.com is an … interesting place. A site for debunking the ridiculous claims and shitty behavior of Pickup Artists? Sounds great – at least until you realize that the denizens are mostly dudes who hate PUAs for all the wrong reasons. That is, they hate PUAs not so much for being manipulative scumbags but for being ineffective manipulative scumbags — whose alleged magic formulas for bedding the hot babes don’t really work.
The other day I was introduced to a fledgling Twitter account, @puahate_txt, which reposts hilariously awful comments from PUAhate.com. This inspired me to take another look at the site and do a little poking around for awful quotes on my own. They weren’t hard to find. (It’s harder, really, to find comments that aren’t awful.)
Here’s one charming fellow, who calls himself ToadLookingMaggot, and who holds a grudge against the entire female gender because of a $3 loan gone awry.
After reading ” The manipulated man ” i saw women really for what they where, little selfish Moneysucking vampire Whores.
This rinsing stuff starts in high school if not earlier they try to leech money, food, free rides and basically anything that benefits them in some kind of form. I borrowed a female 3 dollars for meal a meal one time, for months she said that she was going to let me have it and in the end i never got them back.
It doesn’t matter if it’s 2 dollars or 2.000 dollars there freaks never pay you back. Only idiots buy drinks for women.
Men are ruining women because they let them get away with anything. Never in my life will i ever spend money on women unless we pay 5050 on a date.
Uh, obvious question here, but if you hate women, and think that they’re all “Moneysucking vampire Whores,” WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DATE THEM? I’m pretty sure that you’re not going to find many interested in you either, at least not after they get a whiff of your personality.
And that’s your PERSONALITY, not your looks. PUAhaters seem obsessed with the notion that women only date male models, and spend a lot of time bemoaning their own looks – I just quoted a guy who describes himself as a ToadLookingMaggot, after all. Yet whenever they post pictures of themselves they seem to be completely normal, average, not-actually-bad-looking-at-all guys. Guys, your problem isn’t your lack of beauty on the outside. What’s ugly is your attitudes.
Speaking of which, here’s RomanCitizen, a self-described Incel, lamenting that life is sad to all but the “top 10%” of men? Why? Because ladies walk around looking all pretty, yet for some reason they do not allow RomanCitizen to fuck them.
The life of man is a sad one
Excluding the top 10%.
Born into a world of plenty, of abundance, of denial.
See, smell, imagine.
Do not taste, touch, feel.
Like a caged animal in a harem, fed only occasionally fish heads (scraps in the game).
And when the caged animal gets the fish head (scrap), he is happy and rationalizes his pitiful existence, like many men …
But, the cage is still a cage. A fish head – still a fish head.
PROTIP: If you think of the women you don’t find sufficiently desirable as “fish heads,” and walk around in a perpetual boner-rage, you’re probably not going to seem especially charming to the women you do find desirable. Or to anyone else except perhaps the denizens of PUAHate.com. And not all of them, either.
Oh, ladies, must you complain so much? I mean, who cares if every time you say something on the internet some random dude threatens to rape you? White and Nerdy, the dude behind the Omega Virgin Revolt blog, doesn’t care, and he wants you to know it:
#mencallmethings is just another example of how women (in first world countries) don’t have any actual problems. Between the government and manginas doing everything for women, no woman has any true problems. Any “problem” a woman has is because of one of these reasons:
1. A desire for the equivalent of fried ice. IOW she wants something that is physically impossible.
2. Failed attempts at defrauding, stealing from, or otherwise attempting to enslave men.
That’s it. When a woman has to go through 1% of what a typical non-alpha man has to go through then maybe she can talk about having actual problems. Until that happens women should keep their mouths shut.
Exactly. We need to stop talking about men raping women to focus on the much more important issue of women not having sex with White and Nerdy.
But I am wondering about one thing. Is it possible that the women in question were asking for fried rice instead of fried ice? Because fried rice is totally a thing, and if you call up the proper restaurant someone will literally bring it to your door.
Now I’m hungry.
NOTE: This post may contain 
….
There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.
Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:
The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields. Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man. This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields. Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence. That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses. If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.
He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.
So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.
WAN continues:
[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar. The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now. Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”. As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt. She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world. …
Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:
Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.
This type of thinking is widespread among women. …
[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things. While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking. Anything has got to be better than this.
So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.
I couldn’t make this shit up.
Today, as many of you no doubt know, is Gay Pride Day. Here in Chicago, that means the annual Pride Parade, a celebration of all things LGBTQetc — and a nice aerobic workout for parade participants. (Gyrating on a float for three hours dressed in a leather harness and thong will burn roughly 1000 calories. But beware of chafing!)
Rookh Kshatriya, proprieter of the Anglobitch blog (devoted to the notion that women in the Anglosphere are, well, bitches), has evidently decided to celebrate Pride Weekend by offering us all his theories on gay male sexuality. Which is to say, his theory that there is no such thing as gay male sexuality, and that all those gay men out marching today would much rather be spending their Sunday eating bagels and doing the New York Times crossword puzzle with some comely (non-lesbian) lasses.
Yep, in Rookh’s World, gay men – or, as he puts it, “gay” men — are actually nothing more than exceptionally horny straight men who have been unfairly denied sex-on-demand with women of their choosing.
Let’s let him explain this:
Despite their rhetoric about lifestyles and the contemplation of flowers, gay men are clearly entranced by orgasm to an extent far surpassing that of heterosexual men.
Alas, in our Feminazified world, women sometimes refuse to have sex with men. Deprived a natural outlet for their sexy urges, horny dudes have to, well, improvise a bit. Why try to finagle your way into a vagina assiduously guarded by some dumb lady, when other dudes just as horny as you have holes of their own available for the asking?
As Rookh sees it, these uber-horny dudes really have no other choice.
[A]re most gay men just hyper-sexualized males – a self-selecting group whose priapic urges can only be satisfied by rejecting the relative sexual deprivation inescapably attendant on heterosexuality? The more one considers this possibility, the more plausible it seems. Even some badass with the looks of Apollo, the Game of Roissy and the confidence of a warlord would struggle to enter a nightclub and say: “I want sex NOW!” and expect to get it.
A terrible, terrible injustice. But there is a way out:
Yet homosexual men can enter any gay bath house in any Anglosphere city, say the very same words and expected to be sexually serviced by several men in a matter of minutes! In short, the sexual mismatch between the sexes makes the heterosexual lifestyle a poor option for any hyper-sexualized male – a non-option, in fact, if he wants to fully slake his sexual thirsts. By contrast, adopting homosexuality allows him to instantly indulge his every sexual whim in every manner conceivable.
Unless, of course, these whims involve sex with, you know, women. But lust is apparently stronger than mere sexual orientation. As Rookh sees it, homosexuality is the only rational choice for uber-horny men – even if they’d rather be boning women.
Since sex is so scarce and difficult to acquire in a heterosexual context, it simply makes no sense for an Anglo-American male with priapic urges to remain heterosexual – hence the self-selection of hyper-sexualized males towards homosexual lifestyles, not to mention the hyper-sexualized nature of homosexuality itself.
Is this all a prelude to a touching coming-out announcement by our man Rookh?
No such luck. It’s actually an excuse for, yes, more feminism-bashing. For it is the evil feminists who, in Rookh’s world, have been encouraging the “female sexual ostracism” of poor suffering straight men:
As we all know, women seek to control men by limiting sexual supply, be it representational (pornography) or actual (prostitution) – and that feminism is, essentially, an institution created for that purpose.
And so, in Rookh’s world,
homosexuality has advanced in lock-step with feminism. … [F]eminism – by assailing marital monogamy and allowing women to indulge their primordial attraction to dangerous thugs, moronic bullies and swaggering plutocrats – produced an unwanted ‘rump’ of educated, economically stable but sexually disenfranchised males. Given that gay males are disproportionately intelligent, solvent and educated, it is fairly obvious that members of this group have opted for homosexuality as a means of escaping the living death of involuntary celibacy, that the two phenomena are in fact closely related and that feminism is directly responsible for the advancement of homosexuality across the Anglosphere.
Feminism, by encouraging women to say “no” when they don’t actually want to have sex, may have created modern homosexuality, in Rookh’s view. But that doesn’t mean that feminists actually like gay dudes. No. Ick!
[T]he vast majority of Anglo females detest gay men as vehemently as they hate men in general. … the real link between pan-Anglosphere feminism and homosexuality [is that] the latter is a reaction to the former, which hates it with boundless counter-reactionary zeal.
Yeah, seems to me that the only one here who really “detest[s] gay men” is, well, Rookh, so much so that he’s decided to completely erase gay male sexuality – to put “gay” in scare quotes – in order to give himself another opportunity to run down feminists and women in general.
Now, human sexuality is a weird, messy, complicated, wonderful thing. It may well be that some bisexual men end up having sex with men more often than with women because they find it easier to find male sex partners for casual sex. But guys who are thoroughly gay – who would score a 6 on the famous Kinsey scale – don’t actually want to have sex with women. They really don’t. Drop a beautiful, eligible, horny (straight or mostly straight) woman in the midst of a bunch of Kinsey 6 guys, and this is what you get:
Court’s free!
>
Reason #1538 it’s not such a good idea to spend time online nursing your resentments towards the opposite sex because no one from that sex seems to want to have sex with you: Because that kind of, sort of, makes you a little bit like Jared Loughner.
The Wall Street Journal managed to track down what are apparently some comments Loughner made on a gaming site; they’re full of his usual conspiratorial nonsense (his lunatic theories on grammar and currency) but they’re also, as the Journal notes, “peppered with displays of misogyny.” One posting
titled “Why Rape,” … said women in college enjoyed being raped. “There are Rape victims that are under the influence of a substance. The drinking is leading them to rape. The loneliness will bring you to depression. Being alone for a very long time will inevitably lead you to rape.”
This is the dark side of the “incel” mindset. (That is, those who turn their “involuntarily celibate” state into an identity.)
Another time, the Journal reports, Loughner
started a thread titled “Talk, Talk, Talking about Rejection.” He solicited stories of rejection by the opposite sex. The next day he wrote, “Its funny…when..they say lets go on a date about 3 times..and they dont….go…” Three days later, he wrote, “Its funny when your 60 wondering……what happen at 21.”
There is other evidence that Loughner nursed anger towards and hatred of women and authority figures: he apparently scrawled the phrases “die bitch” and “die cops” on a letter he’d gotten from congresswoman Giffords.
As Amanda Marcotte points out, there are a lot of people out there who’ve responded with anger at the very notion “that misogyny might play a role in the choice of a young man to shoot a powerful woman in the head … .”
But the fact is that misogyny has consequences, and one of its most common and most predictable consequences is violence towards women. Misogyny plays a role, as Marcotte notes, even when the perpetrator of this violence is “crazy.”
What I’m seeing here is that Loughner, mental illness or no, completely absorbed society’s teachings about male entitlement and female sinfulness, that men have a right to have needs filled at women’s expense, and that women give up their rights to bodily autonomy if they do things deemed unladylike, like have sex or drink alcohol.
And just as those who spew hateful political rhetoric — filled with talk of guns and targets and “second amendment solutions” to political “problems” — shouldn’t be surprised when someone takes that rhetoric seriously, so those who spew misogyny online shouldn’t be surprised when someone acts on that misogyny and attacks a woman. As Marcotte puts it,
just because someone has a mental illness rarely means that he’s completely unaware of the world around him. Loughner’s ability with a gun or his thoughts on rape didn’t spring fully formed from his brain, but are the product of an individual interacting with a specific environment.
Those who contribute to that toxic environment — whether they’re Sarah Palin talking about “reloading” or some random woman-hater talking gleefully online about bashing “bitches” — share in the responsibility when someone pulls a gun and shoots down a female politician he’s convinced himself is a “bitch.”
—
If you appreciated this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. Thanks!
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
