Men’s Rights Activist Billy Chubbs: ‘Inherent Selfishness of Women Is Responsible For Claire Davis’s Death’

reddit mens rights


In what is likely the first of many examples in the new year of the Men’s Rights Movement’s complete and utter lack of taste, understanding, or logic, blogger Billy Chubbs — who describes himself as a “bipolar, optimistic Alpha male who truly believes that Beta chumps like himself are doomed in today’s politically correct utopia” — has come up with an alternative theory as to why Karl Halverson came to his high school on Dec. 13, 2013 and shot and mortally wounded fellow teen Claire Esther Davis before killing himself: because pretty girls only sleep with pretty boys.

Since the “cowardly and narrow minded mainstream media refuses to even consider positing such a theory”, no doubt in a conspiracy to keep men down, it was up to him to tell us how “women’s selfishness makes men kill.”  In his own mind-bogglingly stupid words:

What do I mean by women’s selfishness? The majority of women are consistently sexual only with a minority of men. This is a fact. The percentages aren’t certain (some studies claim a 60w/40m percentage – I personally think it’s as high as 70w/30m based on my own empirical observations), but the basics are a sure thing. In our society today, there are hundreds of thousands of young men with insatiable sex drives who are receiving little to no sex from their female peers—not even the less attractive women whom traditionally would be paired off with less attractive men.

Life without sex is a horrible experience, especially when you’re a young man. Although I get laid consistently, I have gone long stretches without any sort of sexual contact with women. It was gruelling. My unfulfilled sex drive made me jack off on average three times a day—four or more on gym days when I upped my testosterone level. For the vast majority of men their sex life is a central part of their character and a major part of their motivation for all aspects of their life. If men are barred from it (whether they actually are or merely feel that they are) for whatever reason, they feel little incentive for anything else; even if that incentive is to not go crazy and shoot people.

Karl wanted to have sex, and just by looking at him it’s obvious he wasn’t getting much, or any. Claire is a beautiful young woman and is doubtlessly the object of affection for many young men who know her, including lonely and sexually frustrated ones. Karl was certainly amongst them. Karl had no chance to ever be with her and he knew it. And that’s why he encountered her in his school, armed with a gun, he turned it against her.

Women whose level of physical looks give them no right to be picky are allowed to chase after the upper tiers of men with no shame while men who are just as, or perhaps even a little more, attractive then themselves are forced to remain virgins into their twenties and are forced to wait until women’s looks begin to fade around the age of twenty-six before being given the chance to enter into a relationship with them. And even then, the relationship is a farce. The woman has only entered it out of desperation since all the upper echelons of sexually enticing men who used to have sex with her have cast her off and she is emotionally damaged by her selfish experiences.

What future did Karl have to look forward to? Working a mediocre job (if he could even get one), living in a society that does not look out for him or his interests in the slightest (while often ridiculing the people like him in the media – when not actively selling out his future) and having to wait until he was twenty-five or older before being able to enter into a sexually satisfying relationship with a woman on par with his looks (who would be incapable of actually loving him by that point due to her dozens of sexual partners)?

Young men like Karl – who aren’t blessed with looks, or exorbitant wealth, or the top tier social skills of the small percentage of men who are getting laid – have been left in the dust by our female-centric, uncaring societies. And society does not care until men like him pick up a gun and starts shooting.

Thank you, Billy, for showing us what real men do: blame the victims.



Tuna Ghost lives in Tokyo and has been a contributor to Japan Times and Kansai Scene.Follow him on twitter (@Tuna_Ghost) to read about US politics, the underground Tokyo metal scene, and which brands of 7-11 wine will make you fight like a homeless werewolf prostitute.  

187 Comments on "Men’s Rights Activist Billy Chubbs: ‘Inherent Selfishness of Women Is Responsible For Claire Davis’s Death’"

  1. VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:12 am |

    So what you’re saying is that pretty girls are obliged to sleep with you even if they find you physically or intellectually unattractive, because otherwise you might need to murder them?

    Sounds legit.

    • AZIZ-SAUNA-SHAVERSHIAN | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:25 am |

      You are fucking retarded, he didn’t say they are obligated. He said treating girls like little princesses makes them think they deserve a prince and have very high standarts. Even girls ‘in his league’ did not want him because of this.

    • Well the media constantly tells men that if we find certain “lower-tier” women physically or intellectually attractive, it means we’re vain, shallow, selfish misogynists who hate women. So why the double standard? Why are women socially allowed to be discerning but men arent? Why is there no social consequence for female shallowness?

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 7:41 pm |

        What the what?

        Seriously guy, I’m not sure what you’re asking here… but I’ll try taking a stab…

        Ok, no, I can’t. I have no fucking clue what media you’re talking about that tells men we are shallow misogynists for doing anything short of caricature. In particular, you seem to be suggesting that men are considered as such if they pursue “unattractive” women… which I just can’t see as a trend at all.

        As to the double standard… you mean the double standard where women are expected to devote themselves whatever disgusting, abhorrent slob first manages to woo them through some pandering gesture? I can’t even count how much of our fiction portrays intelligent and physically attractive women being sexually attracted to unattractive, idiotic, man-children.

        Shit, just look at our actors: nobody bats a fucking eye when overweight men like Kevin James are cast as leading men, but when Camryn Mannheim gets her contract extended in a role that involves her even possessing a sexual identity we freak the fuck out.

        The double standard that exists isn’t even remotely that men aren’t allowed to be discriminating and women are… the double standard is that men are allowed to look however they want to look, and unattractive women *AREN’T EVEN SUPPOSED TO EXIST*. I wish that I could offer a sane, rational, polite rebuttal to your cogent point… but I can’t, because everything you said was so unbelievably silly that I’m left only with incredulity and sarcasm. Sorry dude.

        To clarify, I think anyone who values physical appearance over personality, intelligence, kindness, or anything else that matters even a little bit more than fucking nose symmetry or BMI to *who a person actually is* is shallow. I also think that pretty much everyone is prone to being shallow from time to time… I sure am. It happens. The real sin is in letting it become the only thought pattern you have: being attracted to a person because of how they look is natural and normal, remaining attracted to them despite liking (or even knowing) nothing else about them is fucking stupid.

        • YO V V,

          1.5 Billion follow this man!


          54 INTO 9 GOES NICELY


          A marriage is engaged in by 2 consenting adults.

          Do you really believe a 6 year old child would desire to
          marry a 51 year old man?

          Do you think that is what she would choose?

          Do you think a 9 year old girl would desire to have sex
          with a 54 year old?

          The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the “Holy Prophet” of Mecca married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and WANKED BETWEEN HER THIGHS FOR 3 YEARS and consummated/RAPED her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.


          Now let us see how thighing is practiced on a female child
          & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she
          was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

          Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an
          adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.

          According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

          Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old
          girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.”
          What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

          Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape
          the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.

          Before she reached puberty, he began to have sex with her. Let us see what the fatwa said about the prophet of Islam and his child-bride, Aisha.”Praise be to Allah and peace be upon the one after whom there is no [further] prophet. After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwas (religious decrees) reviewed the question presented to the grand Mufti Abu Abdullah Muhammad Al-Shamari, with reference number 1809 issued on 3/8/1421(Islamic calendar).

          The inquirer asked the following: ‘It has become wide spread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufakhathat of the children (mufakhathat literally translated means “placing between the thighs of children” which means placing the male erected penis between the
          thighs of a child). What is the opinion of scholars knowing full well that the prophet, the peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha – the mother of believers ?’

          After the committee studied the issue, they gave the
          following reply: ‘It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kofar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send.
          As for the Prophet, peace and prayers of Allah be upon him, thighing his fiancée Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age.

          That is why the prophet peace and prayers of Allah be upon him placed his penis between her thighs and massaged it lightly, as the apostle of Allah had control of his penis not like other believers'” (Fatwa No. 31409).

          Thighing of children is practiced in many Arab and Muslim
          countries, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, and the Gulf countries. Also evil practices like altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with
          a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant), (Reported by Baharini Women’s Rights Activist, Ghada Jamshir)

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 24, 2014 at 5:50 pm |

            Fascinating report you just copypasted there… but what the hell does it have to do with anything?

            Was the young woman murdered in this episode a 6 year-old Muslim? Was the perpetrator a Muslim? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you felt this had something to do with the article… but is sure as shit didn’t have anything to do with the comment you replied to (I would know, since I wrote it…).

            Are you, perhaps, just trying to get your anti-Muslim propaganda disseminated onto a high-traffic alt news article that is past the age of activity in hopes of getting onto search engine results?

          • YO V V,

            “I can’t even count how much of our fiction portrays intelligent and physically attractive women being sexually attracted to unattractive, idiotic, man-children”.

            He was a 51year old randy Arab, who was having WET dreams about a child & told her father, it was the will of Allah that he marry her.


            Aisha’s father, Abu Bakr, wasn’t on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

            Sahih Bukhari 7.18

            Narrated ‘Ursa:

            The prophet asked abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “but I am your brother.” the prophet said, “you are my brother in Allah’s religion and his book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”


            And surely thou hast sublime morals

            (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

            Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar

            (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

            Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of
            god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

            THE PROBLEM

            This now has become sunnah & for the past 1400 years, little children have been RAPED, although because an UGLY, PERVERTED Arab wanted to screw a child.

            This Cult is spreading all over Europe & America & Sharia Law is also on its way with it! This is an Arabian form of Nazism & morons like you can’t join the dots.


            Allah promoted this abusive sexual behavior:

            “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” [Koran 2:223]

            Koran (2:223) likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills. In this verse, Allah also gives divine sanction for anal sex.

            According to Islam, Muhammad is the perfection of humanity and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct. He had sex with Aisha at the age of nine, which amounts to rape of a minor. He also left behind an enduring legacy for aged Muslim men to fulfill their carnal desires contrary to natural law and to the life-long devastation of young girls.

      • Your first sentence doesn’t even make sense. It’s like you were trying to say two things at once and combined them into one retarded fuck-up that actually means the opposite of what you were trying to say.

        Have you been drinking?

      • Psst… Don’t tell anyone, but women hold the majority of risk in a relationship.

      • Here’s a clue. Part of the the answer is DNA, and risk. Every relationship and sexual encounter has the potential of pregnancy. That’s nine months of a symbiotic relationship. One that means sharing of necessary bio resources.

        Beyond that, it means a transformation of the woman’s life. The risk and sacrafices for males is minimal, in comparison. Of course there are condoms, the pill, vasectomies, hysterectomies, etc. My answer to this is DNA and gestation.

        It serves our species for women to protect themselves against pregnancy. One man can sire several children in a year. The better the genes of the father, the better genes of the child, the better potential of the child to society. The gestation period of the female is nine months. That’s once a year. Not that having children is all that make women wonderful, however it’s imperative to perpetuity. Bruised egos are not.

        • YO ALL,






  2. Damien Quinn | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:13 am |

    Ah, serial rapist logic, how refreshing. I’m sure “selfish bitches who don’t put out get shot!” goes down well with the ladies.

    I’m not surprised he went for long, long spells without female companionship, no bad thing from an evolutionary point of view.

  3. How could any sane woman f@#k this pathetic excuse for a man ever again? This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard, but apparently “The basics are a sure thing” so I obviously need to do some research. So… let me get this straight ???! If you can’t get laid by the hot chicks or even the ugly chicks (because you are obviously a choad), you should be able murder your “hottest” crush as revenge for her not being attracted to your unattractiveness??. This idiot has some deep sexuality problems. Needing to masturbate 5 times after going to the gym?? I think you need to come out of the closet. May you experience a long, long, miserable life without sex. P.S… Sex isn’t only for you. Women enjoy it also. Unless it’s with you of course.

    • ArmchairMeerkat | Jan 6, 2014 at 11:49 am |

      You people commenting on article are dumb as FUCK! Holy shit man did you ever learn to critically think? Or read between the lines? What the hell is the matter with you? He is obviously pointing at the fact that in American society that when a young man who has a very high and intense sex drive and doesn’t get any becomes sexually frustrated, it can lead him to do drastic things. Like shoot that girl he wanted to fuck. The fact that you can even see the writers point really speaks about how dumb and incompetent you really are. He’s not trying to justify shooting someone because they wouldn’t have sex with you. He’s not as stupid as you are don’t underestimate him. Critically think you god damn netherape.

      • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 11:57 am |

        “Women’s selfishness make men kill. What do I mean by selfishness? The majority of women are consistently sexual only with a minority of men. This is a fact.”

        I’m thinking critically about this, and…uh…well y’know

      • Damien Quinn | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm |

        I see your critical thinking knob is turned all the way up to eleven.

        Shooting a girl is not an appropriate response to sexual frustration, there’s something a little disturbing about someone who thinks otherwise.

      • Just because you agree with (or are) him doesn’t mean that we’re dumb. He is far more stupid than I am and so are you. You’re suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, moron.

        • Thank you! I didn’t realize that that phenomena had a name. Very useful…

  4. AZIZ-SAUNA-SHAVERSHIAN | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:24 am |

    I’m sorry you are a butt hurt female that can not comprehend logic and acts based on pure emotion (MUH FEELINS). That guy who wrote it is correct, I used to be sexually frustrated and wanted to do a shoot out at my school. But instead I bought the Weider PRO 3000 Home gym machine and got jacked. Now girls love me and I have no issues whatsoever.

  5. Tchoutoye | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:25 am |

    Identity politics are a major distraction from more important issues. The mainstream media wouldn’t be pushing them so forcibly if they were that relevant.

    • Discrimination against women is a valid issue for women. If you feel otherwise, I honestly don’t give a shit what your opinion is on issue prioritization.

      You speak like a straight, middle-class white dude who has never suffered from discrimination, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to be, but not a reasonable thing to expect others to agree with.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 6, 2014 at 5:35 pm |

        Just curious.. On what do you base the assumption that straight, middle-class, whites dudes are impervious to discrimination?

        • Jin The Ninja | Jan 6, 2014 at 7:58 pm |

          i can’t speak for Jen, but i can say this:

          while NO one is impervious to discrimination, there are layers of discrimination. intersections of discrimination. and institutional discrimination. there are demographics of people historically marginalised who are much more affected by discrimination on a daily basis- rather than localised, specific examples/anecdotes from the life history of someone who is perceived as being part of the dominant culture.

    • When does the “mainstream media” push identity politics? Gender, in particular, is less likely to be talked about than Race (that is, if it involves Black people) or Homosexuality (that is, if it involves male homosexuals).

      Identity politics are not talked about enough. I would love to see mainstream media actually cover all of the facets of identity politics, but as it stands, they only discuss the most pop-culture relevant aspects.

      Besides, this article is most definitely NOT a part of mainstream media…so…your point?

  6. The “Big ol’ Men iz da greatest” cabal of ruminating narcissists on Reddit are exactly the dying troglodyte breed trying for one last “hoorah!” campaign against reality as they are pushed kicking and screaming into oblivion. Thank you, universe, for evolution and for the natural extinction of species (I suspect they all have a few genes that will never be passed on)

    • Adam's Shadow | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:45 pm |

      Reddit. Just…fuck, man. Fucking Reddit. I secretly suspect that fully one-fourth of all Reddit posters have an abnormally large collection of VHS porn.

  7. I can’t take anyone who considers himself simultaneously an “apha male” and a “beta chump” seriously. At least not until he admits it’s his bipolar disorder talking and not his reason.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:00 pm |

      Do you take men seriously who use these classifications in general?

      • emperorreagan | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

        If someone tells me they’re an alpha male I’ll make two assumptions:
        1. In whatever fashion such things may exist, they’re definitely not one.
        2. They warrant observation, since they’re likely to engage in the sort of behavior they think will establish their dominance.

        • Damien Quinn | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:29 pm |

          Simmer down little man, the big boys are talking!!

          • Simmer down little man. The women and the rational men are talking.

          • Damien Quinn | Jan 6, 2014 at 1:50 pm |

            Do they ever do otherwise? blah de blah blah.

          • In all cultures on earth, from our own to the newest-contacted tribes of the deepest Amazon…it is said that women talk more than men.

            I don’t have a problem with this; people who have a lot to say often talk a lot.

        • Calypso_1 | Jan 6, 2014 at 4:42 pm |

          2a) They warrant being toyed with for sheer amusement value.

      • I don’t. They tend to be misogynists and assholes, who have been told that sexual assaulting women is an awesome way to get dates and they believed it. They also don’t know what alpha and beta males are in the species that they are supposedly basing their terminology on.

        As a woman with self-respect, any man who uses that terminology to refer to themselves is not worth taking seriously, but contradicting which label is theirs within a single sentence? Whooboy. Issues.

        • beezified | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:00 pm |

          Since when do the evolutionary terms “alpha” and “beta” only apply to men?

        • beezified | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:02 pm |

          Just saying, activism is pointless if it’s practicing the same skewed, generalizing behavior as that which it opposes.

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 pm |

        I use them, albeit without the extraneous and misleading “male” signifier, because they are relevant to understanding many human interactions.

        I even identify as an “alpha” myself, though I’m pretty sure I use it differently than the author.

      • Using “alpha male” is excusable, depending on context. Using “beta chump” is misandry wrapped in misogyny.

  8. The only common denominator in all of your bad relationships is you.

    • MRAAlternate | Apr 5, 2014 at 2:19 pm |

      That and being with contemporary women. However this guy sounds especially interested in only sex, like most feminists – they sadly have no interest in relationships.

  9. AZIZ-SAUNA-SHAVERSHIAN | Jan 6, 2014 at 11:34 am |

    What is even the point of having a comment section when this site deletes all the negative ones? The point is to make a discussion and argue not to circle jerk

    • The site doesn’t delete all the negative comments, it deletes ones that call other commenters expletives.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

      It deletes comments on grounds of taste, not opinion. If you are harassing other commenters, your posts will be deleted. It is actually quite common for posters to heap scorn upon an article here at Disinfo, and you’re welcome to do so as well so long as you keep from using the worst kinds of language.

  10. Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm |

    I wasn’t expecting this to get published, since it’s basically a “hey look at this fucking creep thinking that women fucking who they want to fuck is the biggest problem here” article, but I’m glad they did. These people embarrass us all, men and women alike.

    • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

      These people.. meaning men who have trouble getting laid, and simultaneously live in a society with extremely lopsided, double-standard-laden policies and attitudes toward the sexes? Aren’t you kind of proving his point?

      • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm |

        Meaning, men that blissfully ignore the fact that the inequality in society benefits them even though they’re not able to fuck whoever they want.

        • I think calling it “blissful ignorance” is taking it a little too far. It’s painfully obvious that our society is structured on sexist ideals. That doesn’t make it okay to continue to lump all men into the category of the ones who had hands in building our society to the point it is at today. Yeah, some of us fit the bill, but not all. I don’t get this attitude that seems to almost be demanding reparations for millenia of gender oppression. IT’s NOT OUR FUCKING FAULT. I’m more than happy to advocate for gender rights, and would be elated to see the goals come to fruition, but I’m not going to sandbag myself for the sake of keeping someone happy. It’s not like I can just choose to bow out of or ignore the facets of my life that are positively affected by gender inequality, they’re rooted far too deep in our society and have been for far too long. I really wish people would stop using sample audiences of one douchebag on the internet to decide how an entire population feels.

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:27 pm |

            While I actually agree with much of your larger point, I would still maintain that the assertion that men are oppressed if they are not able to have sex with any woman they like at any time is just obviously stupid.

          • If a man were not allowed to eat food that he wanted, every day, it would be considered oppression. If a man were not allowed to drink water every day, it would be oppression. Same for air, shelter, clothing. And not just oppression, but torture. Why should it be any different for sex, itself an innate biological need and compulsion? Why should sexual expression and satiation not be an intrinsic human right?

            Just legalize prostitution and this entire problem will be solved. But why dont women want prostitution to be legalized? Ah, because it floods the market with easily and cheaply available sex, which by the laws of supply and demand would lower the value of their own sexuality, and thus their social power and their ability to coerce male behavior. Once again the Oppressor refuses to relinquish her whip.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:11 pm |

            Why should it be any different for sex, itself an innate biological need and compulsion? Why should sexual expression and satiation not be an intrinsic human right?

            a.) you can live without sex.
            b.) you can have an orgasm by yourself.

            Rape and assault are not about sex, they’re about power. There are plenty of countries like South Korea where prostitution is technically illegal but the laws are not enforced. This hasn’t stopped people from being raped. I have no idea where you’re getting your information, but I’d look for it elsewhere.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2014 at 11:30 pm |

            Maybe guys like this just aren’t that good at b)

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 7:50 pm |

            So… you are oppressed because women don’t want to have sex with you?

            Serious question, have you tried asking them? Women also, frequently, enjoy sex. Some of them even have trouble finding willing sexual partners… no, really, I’m not making this up, there are women in the world who wish to find men for the purpose of having sex. For free, even. I can’t promise you that they are precisely the women that you most desire to have sex with, but that isn’t exactly their fault, now is it?

            Follow up question: if you have, what has been your approach? If it bears any resemblance to your manner here, then I would say it’s no big surprise they aren’t saying yes. Would you really want to have sex with some random woman calling you a jerk and whining that men just don’t find her attractive? Sounds shitty, right? That’s because it is… don’t do that, people don’t like it.

          • Oh, I like this game. Round 2:

            [“If a WOMAN were not allowed to eat food that SHE wanted, every day, it would be considered oppression. If a WOMAN were not allowed to drink water every day, it would be oppression. Same for air, shelter, clothing. And not just oppression, but torture. Why should it be any different for
            sex, itself an innate biological need and compulsion? Why should sexual expression and satiation not be an intrinsic human right?”]

            So, of course you’ve volunteered to pimp yourself to every women you personally find unattractive, right? Or are you a hypocrite?

            Better get out there and start servicing every “unattractive” woman you can find–that is, if they’d even be interested in your services (I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have a *very* difficult time hooking any “Janes”, no matter what you offered to do for them…)

            “But why dont women want prostitution to be legalized?”

            Some women DO want prostitution to be legalized. Especially the women who are prostitutes. Also, libertarians, atheists, sex-positive feminists, anarchists and public health workers.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2014 at 11:28 pm |

            I would enter a thought (not with any support to the other party) that there is another dualism that extends beyond the analogous role reversal of men into sexual physical chattel. Men’s bodies have been prostituted, in a manner, through warfare. The are driven to sacrifice life & limb often through manipulation of/sublimation or direction of what is fundamentally reproductive drive. Outside of pursuing the consequences of this involving rape as an outcome of war, there are potentially intriguing questions involving the intertwining of eros/thanatos as it relates to gender, society & biology.

          • War and the “disposibility” of male bodies is certainly a topic worthy of examination…I suppose we will all be equal when we are all whore-soldiers fucking and killing every other nation into submission to the one world government of Ausenglerica…I hear amputees can really bank in the “service”…

          • I live in a state that has legalized prostitution. The state benefits from the sex trade profits. The brothel owners benefit from their cut of the prostitutes’ fees (& fines they charge the prostitutes). It makes our state ‘sinful’ and therefore an adult haven in a Disney-fied country. It would work out fine for everyone involved if there were some fair and equal protections offered to the legal prostitutes. Our state’s Labor Board doesn’t help them because they are ‘independent contractors’. Our unions can’t help them, or won’t help them, because they’re trying to stay squeaky clean.

            The prostitutes themselves are all ‘independent contractors’ who can’t leave the brothels… They pay for room & board, they pay for client referrals from taxi drivers & hotel concierges, they pay the doctors for their check-ups, they pay for their own food (which may be withheld as punishment for weight gain), they get fined for things like putting on 5 lbs. or showing up a few seconds late to line-up… they are often denied access to communicating w/the outside world and self-improvement like college educations. They can be fired for anything because as independent contractors they have no representation and no protection – and the number of legal sex workers is too low to be meaningful to major unions. And if they do manage to leave the life, they struggle afterwards to get jobs and live life ‘in the real world’ because they are considered to be no better than ex-cons or illegal prostitutes.

            Without major reform, ‘legalized’ prostitution only works for the pimps who own the brothels (and yes, I do mean pimps – not madams or ‘hosts’).

          • emperorreagan | Jan 9, 2014 at 4:23 pm |

            I was a little surprised at what a crap deal the women at the bunny ranch get. The guy seems like a scumbag, but with the TV shows and all the mainstream attention they get I wouldn’t have suspected they had policies like handing out $300 coupons (for which the woman basically has to do whatever the coupon holder wants rather than negotiating what $300 is worth) and still taking 50% of the value freakin’ coupon they gave someone.

          • circeherbivora | Jan 9, 2014 at 4:32 pm |

            Dude, get a flesh light. Women use their hands and they use vibrators to deal with their own “biological needs.” Get a “Real Doll” if it means that much to you to have a partner. The truth is: we don’t always get what we want, y’know? I’ve had TONS of unrequited crushes and love-affairs in my head. But you just pull on your big girl panties and you move on. And actually, I know a LOT of women who favor the legalization of prostitution- so long as it is conducted in such a way that it doesn’t further victimize impoverished women.

          • Eric_D_Read | Jan 15, 2014 at 12:15 pm |

            “Liked” for legalizing prostitution, and pointing out that women will be the ones fighting the hardest against it and why.

          • EpicTruthTold | Jan 6, 2014 at 11:44 pm |

            Well said! This is beyond contestation and as such ends the need for anymore speculation on the topic of “Equality for fucking who we want to fuck most, a mans say”
            The ways around any such standards set in society keeping men in the stratification and incarceration of being able to fuck who they feel they themselves feel should want to fuck them are as follows.
            Be incredibly rich.
            Be incredibly famous.
            Be incredibly rich and famous.

        • Inequality does not benefit the lower classes. You sound exactly like a right-wing radio guy claiming that black people on welfare have it better than everyone else. Women control the sexual playing field. The entire reason man-on-woman rape is considered such a horrendous act is because it is considered a theft of a valuable resource, outside the normal working order of society. Woman-on-man rape is seen as a complete joke, specifically because male sexuality has zero worth in our society. People actually claim that when it happens, the woman is doing the man a FAVOR. Such an attitude would only be possible if female sexuality was inherently prized while male sexuality was completely devalued.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:08 pm |

            Women control the sexual playing field.

            Are you able to say no to a woman? Then they don’t control the sexual playing field. It may feel like that to people who aren’t good at navigating it, but this is by no means what is actually happening.

            The entire reason man-on-woman rape is considered such a horrendous act is because it is considered a theft of a valuable resource, outside the normal working order of society.

            That is…not even close to being accurate. Rape is considered a horrendous act because it is an assault, not a theft. That’s why it’s called “sexual assault”.

          • Rhoid Rager | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:37 pm |

            I think this fella is too far gone to argue with. He’s too caught up in his own male-role and certainly seems to have a chip on his shoulder towards women.

            The fact that he can claim a man raping a woman is a ‘theft of resources’ betrays his misogyny and general deprecative views of humanity, in general. He’s a lost cause through this medium.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:18 pm |

            Man is not the lower class in this particular inequality. You’re going to have a hard time arguing otherwise.

          • “Inequality does not benefit the lower classes.”

            He never said that. You’re just illiterate.

      • Calling men on their bad behavior and trying to hold them accountable for it is not discrimination, nor is a woman having the authority to refuse to have sex with any given man who wants to have sex with her.

        His argument holds no water whatsoever. THESE men always seek sex with people more attractive than they are, because they have bought into a dating system in which beauty is a status symbol for their friends. They treat women appallingly and then call it discrimination for women to turn them down.

        That isn’t discrimination no matter how often they insist that it is. If you are an asshole to women, them not having sex with you is the consequences of your actions, not discrimination.

        The lopsided, double standards of sex in our society are that men are expected to have sex with tons of women, expected to not have sex with any men, and expected to freely give themselves to the specific man who asks (but only him no matter how many have asked). Women are chastised for having sex and for refusing sex.

        Sorry that you don’t understand that the loser in this system is women. Try treating women with respect and try being interesting t women and you’ll get more dates. That’s how life works. Grow up.

        • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 6, 2014 at 3:38 pm |

          Well, right you are, and that’s how I’ve always done it. But I don’t think the author was suggesting that women should be forced into redistribution-of-fuck, but rather, pointing out a skew in the curve that at least on the surface would seem to be the fault of women. Not so sure I buy it, because there is also a skew in the sex-seeking behavior among men.. but whatev
          But just calling him a creepy-creep isn’t meaningful. Sheez

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 5:21 pm |

            But I don’t think the author was suggesting that women should be forced into redistribution-of-fuck

            In our society today, there are hundreds of thousands of young men with insatiable sex drives who are receiving little to no sex from their female peers—not even the less attractive women whom traditionally would be paired off with less attractive men.

            If men are barred from it (whether they actually are or merely feel that they are) for whatever reason, they feel little incentive for anything else; even if that incentive is to not go crazy and shoot people.

            I dunno, guy, it seems pretty suggestive to me

          • What does he mean by “traditionally” here, anyway?

            Certainly not like, the Victorian era, unless he meant “less rich women”, rather than “less attractive women”…

          • Upvote solely for the phrase “redistribution-of-fuck.”

          • He said this girl deserved to be shot.

        • Oh, so when WOMEN have a “system of beauty” impressed upon them by others, they are being “oppressed”. But when MEN have a system of beauty impressed upon them by others, they are “buying into it”, which means its 100% their fault. Gotcha.

          • [“But when MEN have a system of beauty impressed upon them by others, they are “buying into it”]

            NO. That is not what was said.

            When MEN “buy into” the “system of beauty” that is being-impressed-upon-WOMEN it is the fault of MEN for “buying into” that system.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 9, 2014 at 12:54 am |

            It’s men who set up the system that is being impressed upon women. That’s the crucial piece of information you’re either missing or ignoring.

        • Sexual Capitalism doesnt work any better than Economic Capitalism.

          The only solution is the proper and equitable socialist redistribution of sexual activity through legalized prostitution.

          • …capitalism…prostitution…


            Do you not actually understand what prostitution is?

            It sure as fuck isn’t socialist.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 9, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

            Would you a consider a female dominated Bonobo model socialist? ie) sexuality for social cohesion/hierarchy reinforcement/conflict resolution-reconciliation & commodities exchange.

          • Hm…I’ll have to get back to you on that one…

          • When you remove capitalism from prostitution, you don’t have prostitutes, you have sex slaves or ‘comfort women’ (not that typical prostitutes are much better off than slaves or comfort women, but hopefully most get my point).

  11. Lookinfor Buford | Jan 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm |

    …the first of many examples in the new year of the Men’s Rights Movement’s complete and utter lack of taste…
    says the girl with the ‘TunaGhost’ handle..

    • I’m sorry if you’re haunted by the ghost of a tuna. That was indeed insensitive of this writer, whose gender I do not know. I expect that you assume that the writer is female because they disagree with moronic PUAs.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 6, 2014 at 5:34 pm |

        I assume female because females seem to strike a similar tone when they are mad at men. It’s just obvious, that’s all 😉 But whether female or not, it’s the irony of the word taste… oh nevermind

        • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 6:52 pm |

          a.) I’m not a woman, and b.) the name is taken from Invader Zim. I’m not sure why you think it has something to do with either taste or women.

          • I think he’s trying to make a joke about tuna tasting bad or something.

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 7:26 pm |

            I assume it is a rather tasteless reference to the taste of a women. Even more tasteless because the woman in question is, presumably, deceased.

          • I don’t believe the character of “Agent Tuna Ghost” was deceased, actually…there is a potential joke to be made about the word “tasteless”, which only I and Jen L are biologically-qualified to make, but I’d rather not encourage “Lookinfor Bumfuck”…

            Furthermore: “Agent Tuna Ghost is a member of The Swollen Eyeball Network. She’s the first one that Dib calls when he needs to reverse the Sense of the Shadowhog spell, so it would seem that Tuna Ghost is a specialist in magic or bad taste, one or the other.”

            The synchronicities are deep on this one.

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 7, 2014 at 10:26 pm |

            He’s used the handle for years & on occasion proved well-versed in the occult.

          • Tuna Ghost | Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 am |

            that might be my favorite compliment I’ve received in the new year

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 7:59 pm |

            I meant if he was unaware of the Invader Zim character. I was trying to be punny.

            As to the Zim specifics… gotta be honest, never much cared about it, never managed to make myself sit down and watch any. Nothing anyone has ever said about it makes me really want to, either.

          • My reply was really just an excuse to work in “Lookinfor Bumfuck”, because I’m hilarious.

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 9:46 pm |

            A fair objective.

          • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 7, 2014 at 11:19 am |


          • Wow. Double moron. Are you going for a triple?

            Invader Zim was an American TV cartoon. I can vouch for Tuna Ghost’s statement “b”. “Agent Tuna Ghost”, actually.

            Do you not know how to use a fucking search engine before you go and embarrass yourself?

    • Moron.

  12. Astrid Kristine Flikka | Jan 6, 2014 at 1:48 pm |

    I started to read this with a open mind. If I want men to take women seriously, women need to take men seriously too. But wow, sorry, I just got LOL’d.

  13. IokSotot | Jan 6, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

    The “Selfish” angle is very unhelpful. This is just tragedy. Two young people dead.

    Love and physical intimacy are fundamental human needs, even for unsexy people.

    • Sex is not a need.

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 6, 2014 at 7:19 pm |

        For an individual no, for a population yes.

      • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 7:32 pm |

        In terms of long-term mental and emotional health, sex and physical intimacy are absolutely needs for the overwhelming majority of people. Not intercourse, necessarily, but some variety of sexual contact.

        There is nothing wrong with this, nor is it exclusive to any gender or sexual orientation. In my experience, it even applies to many people who identify as asexual.

        As with everything psychological/emotional, some exceptions definitely exist, I know a few myself, but the general rule still applies.

        Please do not interpret this as even remotely defensive of the article or its author, it is absolutely not intended as such.

        • > In my experience, it even applies to many people who identify as asexual.

          Interesting. Might you elucidate?

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:21 pm |

            I know a reasonably large number of people who identify as asexual, most of whom are biologically female. This runs the gamut from viewing themselves as gender-neutral or androgynous to viewing penetrative sex as undesirable.

            Within this group, a plurality engage in varying degrees of sexual contact with other people, often in terms of an exclusive or selective sexual relationship. This might mean they have a partner of some consistent sex or gender identity whom they kiss, embrace or cuddle, but do not engage in genital sex. It can also mean that they have multiple sexual partners of varying sexual orientations and gender identities with whom they engage in any number of sex acts. Usually, it falls somewhere in the middle.

            Sorry if I’m being a bit obtuse, but I’m not wholly comfortable discussing the specific details of other individuals’ sex lives, especially since I am not nearly anonymous in this space to adequately preserve the anonymity of my personal acquaintances.

          • So…you have “had sex” with every person you have kissed or cuddled? You’re changing the definition of the word. We all know what sex is: it’s that stuff that involves “the naughty bits”.

            Kissing and cuddling are not sex.

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:16 pm |

            I specified “sexual contact” for precisely that reason. Check the last sentence of the first paragraph.

            Different people do not share your experience or worldview; this in no way invalidates their experiences or worldviews.

          • I understand what you said perfectly well…”sex” was understood to mean what it means in the original comment to which you were replying. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 6, 2014 at 10:45 pm |

            I tend to believe that most people’s view of what “sex” means is informed far more by their own personal tastes and biases than by the meaning behind the act. Even between people with broadly shared preferences, personal definitions often match less than most people think.

            In any event, I seem to have understood Andrew’s comment a bit more broadly than you did. I cannot claim to have understood it more accurately, though I’m not sure you can either ;).

          • Oh, I can. I can indeed. I can-can.

      • IokSotot | Jan 7, 2014 at 4:40 am |

        Who said sex? Me? Read again.

      • Calypso_1 | Jan 9, 2014 at 1:47 am |

        I pulled this definition from the Lacanian Psychoanalysis Wiki:

        Need is a purely biological instinct, an appetite which emerges according to the requirements of the organism and which abates completely (even if only temporarily) when satisfied.

        However, whereas the Other can provide the objects which the subject requires to satisfy his needs, the Other cannot provide that unconditional love which the subject craves. Hence even after the needs which were articulated in demand have been satisfied, the other aspect of demand, the craving for love, remains unsatisfied, and this leftover is desire.

        “Desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction, nor the demand for love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the first from the second.”
        Desire is thus the surplus produced by the articulation of need in demand; “Desire begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated from need.”

        Unlike a need, which can be satisfied and which then ceases to motivate the subject until another need arises, desire can never be satisfied.

        • I was just listening to Roy Orbison’s “Crying”…

          …what happened to the time when “Desire” was met with an impulse to create great art, instead of insane and ignorant rants…?

          I mean, even insane and ignorant rants can be great art if done right…I guess I mean “what happened to creativity?”

          (I guess he’d have to understand women more deeply than blow-up dolls before he could get to the point of respecting them enough to actually hate them…)

  14. Rhoid Rager | Jan 6, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

    Some threads on Disinfo are golden. But this one is filled with more debris than a trawler’s net. Misogynia-themed stories seem to be magnets for simple minds.
    Message to ‘sex-deprived’ men: Go read Epictetus.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 6:08 pm |

      to be fair, that’s good advice for anyone

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 7, 2014 at 1:23 pm |

      This may be then, not a moment to be silent, but to show how we have learned to think better. I have given some recent thought to who these persons of times past were, to whom we turn for sage advice and if any of our own time will hold such a place to future generations. After all these were men. Just as us. Yet it seems too often we yield to them attributes we fail to find within ourselves.

      As to the advent of recent men’s movements – I will not fault persons for recognizing something deeply wrong within our cultures. There are many that are deeply driven to seek something tangible not offered by society. That such efforts at the same time attract those that trawl through more ignoble elements does not necessarily burden them with responsibility to purge the ranks. They fall well enough on their own. Better sometimes to abandon or ignore the irredeemable. By the time there is a ‘movement’ most often the core, if it has actually produced any truly developed individuals, have moved on; the vacancy taken up by profiteers.

      That said, no quarter need be given either. This thread, can be, perhaps need be reconciled. So yes, turn us towards the revelations of those past, of those here well suited to the task you are far, far from the least. Or if you would even venture from your own voice, I would exhort you sir to take the floor.

      • Rhoid Rager | Jan 8, 2014 at 5:09 am |

        Thank you for your vote of confidence, my friend. I find the timing of your stream of thought quite agreeable, as it is one of my New Year’s Resolutions to write down my thoughts more. After having hit a large segment of writer’s block for well over a year (culminating in my withdrawal from graduate school last April) I have resolved to be more intellectually productive this year than the previous three combined.

        Indeed, great thinkers to be recognized in the future surely do walk among us now, and those in the past surely faced larger obstacles than we do now. However, I feel the Great Skewing of human thought which has taken place over the past several centuries–which is to say the non-recognition and/or persecution of many inspirational and innovative thinkers–has inflicted such a large epistemological wound on society that to be socially dismissed as someone with nothing to contribute has, itself, become an accolade. But this notion is not an altogether novel one.

        Regarding the topic at hand, my reference to Epictetus was indirect encouragement towards reflection for those who would hold themselves somehow injured through their own perception of cultural boundaries. The one who perceives often forgets that it is their perceptions that bring them the travails they suffer, rather than any external factor. To value the act of sex to such a degree that one perceives it as being a necessary commodity denied through the refusals of a potential partner to transact with is the echo of a larger transactionally-driven social milieu mourning its own paradoxical solitude.

        One has a choice to act as a sounding board for the social pulses around them, or to refuse to reflect back such currents through one’s speech and actions towards others. There are many methods to realize this choice–confronting one’s desires upfront by interrogating their origins; exhausting them through practice–although this is sometimes self-destructive; breaking desire through denial; or considering the nature of the object of one’s desire etc. The Stoics, such as Epictetus, generally opted to confront and deny. For each their own method, but the end product is the same, in my view. It is a disvaluation of values, and appreciation of the singularity of the Self.

        My above brevity on this was in part due to comment fatigue and the general negativity of this thread. As you rightly pointed out, it is sometimes better to abandon or ignore the irredeemable. Perhaps their existence serves a purpose to remind us of our own inner follies.

    • Oh, so youre saying sexually oppressed men should just “calmly and dispassionately accept what fate has given them”? I seem to remember a certain Duck Dynasty star saying exactly that same thing about African Americans under slavery and Jim Crow.

      • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm |

        How are they oppressed? How is not fucking someone oppression? Are you seriously saying men have an innate right to sex?

      • Rhoid Rager | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:22 pm |

        I’m saying that men who believe themselves to be ‘sexually oppressed’ (I disagree with your coopting of that term) ought to reflect on what harm is actually coming to them.

      • You think that women not fucking unattractive men is just like Blacks being enslaved?

        Are you a troll? I really hope you’re a troll.

  15. Dingbert | Jan 6, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

    I’m glad he acknowledges our defective sex-positive culture, but I’m perplexed at why he thinks the solution is more sex.

  16. Bruteloop | Jan 6, 2014 at 2:47 pm |

    American man with easy access to gun shoots innocent.

    Justification given by someone, somewhere.


  17. Mene Tekel | Jan 6, 2014 at 3:30 pm |

    Why are you giving this person more of a voice? His opinion wouldn’t matter so much if you weren’t sharing it. Admit it, Disinfo, you’re doing it for the inflammatory comments and the page clicks.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 6, 2014 at 5:18 pm |

      I had similar thoughts when posting it, but I figured people like this will probably hang themselves if you give them enough rope, which can only be a victory for western culture

  18. Calypso_1 | Jan 6, 2014 at 6:00 pm |

    “incapable of actually loving….due to… dozens of sexual partners”.
    This as a qualifier from someone who writes as a PUA?

  19. I blame all this on the unpopularity of cod pieces.

  20. beezified | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:05 pm |


    Assumed content: Some stuff that’s going to piss people off and cause an argument for no reason. IT’S ONE GUY.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 9, 2014 at 1:10 am |

      a guy that’s part of a larger movement whose views echo his own. That’s why it’s important to shed light on this sort of thing.

  21. Calypso_1 | Jan 6, 2014 at 8:24 pm |

    White middle-class males can be sexually assaulted.

  22. So, remember girls: if you don’t sleep with everyone you deserve to be shot because you’re a selfish prude; if you DO sleep with everyone you also deserve to be shot because you’re an (unselfish) slut.

    Glad we got that straightened out.

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm |

      The justifications that this author is using to take his thought in this direction are also disgusting because the crime (in no way absolving any element of it) fits the standard pattern of erotomania/murder-suicide. Trying to construct a paradigm to reconcile his own personality disorder upon the actions of someone who may have had serious mentally illness also makes it more difficult to differentiate the actual causation for those that may identify with very normal relationship/developmental difficulties.
      This brings additional horror & stigma to the experience of the friends and families of both perpetrator & victim.

  23. EpicTruthTold | Jan 6, 2014 at 11:21 pm |

    Well that’s 5 minutes of my life I can’t get back, reading your BS view or justification on the psychopathic actions by a kid cause he couldn’t have what he wanted.
    Sounds fair.

  24. Does being repeatedly beaten in school for not being athletic or assertive enough for the male gender role count?

    • Calypso_1 | Jan 7, 2014 at 10:44 am |

      I think verbal derision for body type along the same lines often with distinctly sexual undertones certainly can match cat calls.

      I know plenty of very ‘manly’ job environments where men who do not measure up face things such as having their coworkers expose and/or place their genitals or them, being restrained and fingered….you get the picture. Try and do anything about it and you risk a work place ‘accident’.

      I’ve never seen any of these so called men’s rights advocates talk about this. In fact some of these new alt-men’s communities are overtly fostering a return to a more ‘Spartan’ lifestyle that encourages such ‘intimacies & bonding’.

  25. DrDavidKelly | Jan 7, 2014 at 1:07 am |

    This is patently absurd not to mention dangerous thinking. I and many others I know sleep with people for more than just their looks? I’ll take the fat ugly nice girl over the hot thin bitch any day.

  26. Lookinfor Buford | Jan 7, 2014 at 11:05 am |

    Is that ‘the’ definition of discrimination, or just ‘your’ definition?
    I can tell you what has *never* happened to me. I’ve never been just happily accepted because I’m white. Never had a group (other than family), just look at me, and say ‘you’re in!”. Never. Hey look! There’s a Good ‘ol white boy! Come here boy, you’re in!
    Discrimination on appearances is a fact of life. That’s why people pay attention to their appearance. Every thing that happens after you break through the initial appearance door, happens because of your actions. This is no different for any race or gender. But there will always be groups we cannot break through, for whatever discriminatory reason. This includes us white boys, believe it or not.

    • > I’ve never been just happily accepted because I’m white.

      Bullshit. It happens to me all the time.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 7, 2014 at 12:20 pm |

        Example please, where your actions had nothing to do with your acceptance to a new group. Simply, white -> in.

        • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 8:02 pm |

          Have you ever walked into a room full of people you’ve never even met, and nobody seemed to notice, or care, or call the cops?

          I’ll bet you have.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 11:55 pm |

      Have you walked into a department store and not been a focus of attention for security? I’ll bet you have.

      • Lookinfor Buford | Jan 9, 2014 at 11:22 am |

        There are countless non-whites, and a vast majority of women, who can say the same thing exactly, which is the proof of the theorem that not experiencing a condition is not a valid comparison to experiencing it’s opposite.
        applies to both the ^^ examples above, so I have yet to see a worthy response here.

        • Tuna Ghost | Jan 10, 2014 at 5:27 am |

          There’s a difference between systemic discrimination and someone being suspicious of you that one time you walked into an upscale department store. I can’t even believe you need this explained to you.

  27. gustave courbet | Jan 7, 2014 at 12:59 pm |

    I am continually impressed by the human ability to use complex abstract language to convey profound stupidity. It is the intellectual equivalent of building a cathedral out of dog shit.

  28. I wonder if people who mock Jews realize that their cultural references are just completely lost on the 99% of the American population who has never encountered this stereotype in reality…it comes off as though you were mocking a mythical creature or a fast food mascot.

    • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 8:03 pm |

      I figured he was mocking himself… why else would a person act like such an asshole?

      • “why else would a person act like such an asshole?”

        Aw, you’re so innocent. 🙂

        • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 9:52 pm |

          I act like such a massive asshole because, fundamentally, I consider myself to be ridiculous and deserving of far more mockery, both in quantity and in viciousness, than others are willing or able to give.

          Of course, behaving like an asshole makes me more ridiculous and deserving of mockery… I may be in a bit of a downward spiral.

          • Oh! And self-deprecating, to boot!

            I was literally calling you “innocent” for asking why someone would just randomly act like an asshole.

            I have no personal knowledge of your assholery. You seem nice enough so far. 😛

          • VaudeVillain | Jan 8, 2014 at 10:03 pm |

            When one can be an asshole to all, even unto themselves, then shall they know Douchevana. It is a glorious place, filled with belligerent shouting and adorned with horrific fountains of pure bile.

          • Oh, I’ve been there…haven’t we all?

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 8, 2014 at 11:07 pm |

            A few floors above rock bottom is it not?

          • I don’t know…is “rock bottom” when you’ve finally face-planted the cement…? >_>

            Been there too…

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2014 at 12:31 am |

            Can be. Different for everybody.
            The working definition would be the lowest point you can get.

          • Without dying?

          • Calypso_1 | Jan 10, 2014 at 2:56 pm |


  29. Well think about it. Why do we have all these “Real Beauty” campaigns trying to convince men theyre supposed to find fat, ugly women attractive, but there are no campaigns designed to do the same for fat or ugly men?

    But anyway, if what this guy says is true, you could end it overnight by legalizing prostitution.

    • Tuna Ghost | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:16 pm |

      “Real beauty” campaigns are still using conventionally attractive women, just women that haven’t had digital effects added. I find it revealing that you think you’re the target of these campaigns.

  30. DeepCough | Jan 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm |

    Although I get laid consistently, I have gone long stretches without any sort of sexual contact with women.

    I guess it must be hard for this chode to get duct tape when he needs it, huh?

  31. White middle class males can also be harrassed by the police and made to feel like they are going t otake something. Not that I am supporting Lookinfor Bufird. That person appears to be incorrigible.

  32. There’s a whole a scientific study that may answer many of the misgivings displayed in the article, and by some of the commentors. It’s called evolutionary psychology.

    The Moral Animal by Robert Wright may be of interest as an intro.

  33. circeherbivora | Jan 9, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

    Any man who rationalizes this type of behavior merits being on a watch list for society’s protection. How long before his “consistent” amount of sex-that he obviously feels entitled to- peters out (so to speak.) and he decides to wreak vengeance against all the “pretty” women who have spurned him? We don’t need another Sodini, and this guy sounds like he’s got the mindset all ready.

  34. The Peoples Luciferian | Jan 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm |

    Lets talk about the so-called wage gap betwen the genders and the allefged under-representation of women in certain fields and carreers,etc{there are also careerers and fields where men are under-represented but no one talks about that for some reason}. Wage gap. this no longer exists. Women can work towards and apply for attain just as much wealth and/or power as men in todays western society. The wage gap claims are errnoneous and ignore nuance and variables, so is the under-representatithing. While there are isolated cases of individual women being screwed in the wage or representation thing, there are also such for men as well. Over-all, if a women wants a job or carreer and the right pay equal to what men get, they can get it. the problem hjere is that certain carreers with wealth and/or power

    are mainly pursused by males by choice, females choose other carrreers by their own free choice, this is not some systemic oppression of females, it’s males and females just choosing differently. You can do the rfeserach and find that there are women CEO’s of corporations who are multi-billionaires and plenty of men who are poor{and women},etc. Lets take the firefighters job as an example where feminists say women are under-represented and/or paid less. In this carreer more men pursude this carrer by their own choice and less women their own choice, a few women do work towards it and get it and get paid equally for equal work in that job. Now in some cases the women are say 140-150 pounds and only slightly strong, whereas more men in the job are 250 pounds give or take and stronger. Should a woman[or man} who is not at the frontlines because of being smaller and/or weaker be paid equally as the one who has to break down doors and carry people out of burning buildings? Tjose who have the rsikier jobs to their life and limb deserve more pay, in these situations it’s often that the women are smaller/weaker and cannot so easily run in, break down doors/through walls and carry people out as quickly. I saw a example in a documenatry once, they had a woman about 150 pounds and a man about 250 go though those processes on mock, and the bigger male got the job done easier and quiocker, if it was a real fire..and it was the smaller woman that did it…people would’ve died in the fire.
    feminists don’t take these things into considferation enoyugh, these variables.

    • Well I read that to where the wage gap no longer exists and rainbow ponies fart gold coins, then I couldn’t go on

  35. I’d upvote your comment, but you put quotes around the word rape in your 9th line.

    • Why would you up-vote it at all? The biggest criticism I have against the “men’s movement” is that it’s about 3 decades too late–they’re always arguing against a type of feminism which is decidedly *not* the mainstream. “Kyriarchy” is a term I’ve brought up before…this is more representative of current feminist thought.

      The subject of men’s rape is something discussed often by today’s feminism, because, well you know, it also affects women and women’s perceptions of themselves…

      Maybe it’s just because I’m young, maybe it’s because I live in the South, but my view on feminism is sometimes considered “extreme” by my female peers simply because I’m willing to *use the word at all* (even when those women are often what I would deem “feminist”, themselves). “Feminism” here is too often considered code for “lesbian”.

  36. I am white, middle class, and male. I have a name, and I am human. I am not the creature or object you are talking about. That is all I am saying. Please do not explode and explain more for me, I apreciate the time you took. However I think you got the wrong impression.

    • How was she exploding? Perhaps a little snarky, but she doesn’t know you and it’s an easy enough mistake when reading the other comments and the article in tandem to your own…I know you’re cool. 😉

  37. Tuna Ghost | Jan 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm |

    Helpful hint: “femifascists” doesn’t make you sound less of a idiot than “feminazis”.

  38. Tuna Ghost | Jan 10, 2014 at 8:12 pm |

    To steal a joke:

    A: “How many Men’s Rights activists does it take to change a lightbulb?”

    B: “Knock Knock.”

    A: “What? This isn’t a knock-knock joke, it’s a–”

    B: “Yeah, but did you know that knock-knock jokes happen too? Why are you ignoring them, fascist?

  39. Tuna Ghost | Jan 10, 2014 at 8:19 pm |

    What does any of this unsubstantiated and poorly edited tripe have to do with the article?

  40. Blacktiger | Jan 12, 2014 at 1:40 pm |

    Girls are selfish because they only go with the athletic handsome guys????? OK how about the GUYS that only *USE* the girls that are not beautiful because the pretty girls make them look good.

  41. Oh my god, these comments are hilarious. Everybody’s such a victim, everybody is so goddamn oppressed, everybody is so marginalized, and nobody else is as much as them. I actually laughed. From feminists claiming men can’t be raped, men calling rape a “theft of a commodity,” and the classic “I’m a human being, I’m not like that, but let me tell you about THOSE people.” Honest legitimate points are being made on both sides but the sheer amount of emotional ideology behind them makes them un-digestible. Jesus, this is why I couldn’t stand Reddit. Did r/srs and r/Mensrights flood the place?

  42. After reading this I read about half the comments and I came to the conclusion that the writer and a number of the respondents need to move out of their parents basements and get a REAL life.


    Man slit girlfriend’s throat, set her on fire: Crown | Toronto Sun. h/t TROP

    TORONTO — A killer slit a university student’s throat from ear to ear and set her on fire, a jury heard Monday.

    In her opening to the jury, Crown attorney Jennifer Stanton said Farshad “Shawn”
    Badakhshan, who was dating the victim, trapped Carina Petrache, 23, in his basement bedroom at his Toronto home by lighting a fire on July 2, 2010.

    Badakhshan, 30, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. He contends he’s not criminally responsible because he suffered from a mental disorder at the time.

    Stanton said some of Petrache’s friends didn’t approve of her relationship with Badakhshan, describing him as “jealous and controlling.”

Comments are closed.