Categories
a woman is always to blame alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males antifeminism beta males boner rage creepy empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies imaginary oppression men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny narcissism not-quite-explicit threats playing the victim PUA rhymes with roosh sympathy for murderers that 80%/20% bullshit that's completely wrong victim blaming

Return of Kings blog: High school girls are responsible for school shootings because they won't have sex with nerds

A memorial for the victim of the shooting
A memorial for the victim of the shooting

Attention pretty high school girls! If a nerdy looking dude in your school shows up one day loaded with guns and Molotov cocktails and starts shooting up the place, it’s actually your fault, for not sleeping with him.

That, in any case, is the argument of a recent post on pickup guru Roosh V’s repulsive Return of Kings blog. In a post titled Why Did Karl Halverson Pierson Attack His School And Kill A Pretty Girl? guest blogger Billy Chubbs looks at a recent shooting at Arapahoe High School in Colorado, throwing out the few bits of information we do have about the shooter and making up a story of his own.

On December 13 2013, Karl Halverson Pierson walked into his high school with a gun, wounded a fellow student named Claire Davis and then killed himself. The assumed motive was Karl’s anger toward a teacher at the high school but others in the mainstream media posited their own theories as to the reasons behind the shooting. The usual suspects were called out to blame: prescription drugs, mental illness, gun control, etc. … One theory that was noticeably absent from the ‘experts’ who reported on the situation, however, was Karl’s probable sexual frustration.

His proof? The fact that the girl he managed to shoot and mortally wound before killing himself was quite conventionally attractive. Chubbs posts pictures of the shooter and the girl he shot, who subsequently died:

What do you notice right away? Karl’s not a stunningly handsome dude and Claire is a smoke show. As of this writing, there’s not much information on Karl’s sexual history. It’s doubtful that Karl had a girlfriend, and it’s likely that he was a virgin.

Chubbs makes clear that even if he’s completely wrong about all this, he’s not going to let mere facts stand in the way of his theory.

By the way, if further details are released in the future which discredit my assumptions, well, ignore the Karl parts of this article obviously. Yet even if I’m wrong in my assumptions of Karl’s life, the basic gist of this article is right and does apply to the majority of normally peaceful men who suddenly turn violent and perpetrate these tragedies.

And so he moves on to state what he considers his very brave thesis:

Return Of Kings has touched on this subject before, but since the cowardly and narrow minded mainstream media refuses to even consider positing such a theory, it’s up to us ROK truth sayers to repeat ad nauseum such observations: women’s selfishness makes men kill.

And by “selfishness” Chubbs means their unwillingness to shower sex on all men.

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.

If by “sure thing” you mean “completely wrong,” then yes. There’s no evidence to back up the oft-repeated manosphere myth that women are having sex with only a small percentage of men. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of adult men are having at least occasional sex. According to one recent survey of American sexual behavior, some 86% of men said they’d had sex in the past year; only 70% of women said the same.

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.

Wait, someone on Return of Kings is suggesting that it might be acceptable for a man to date a “less attractive woman?” The sort of woman that Roosh and Return of Kings routinely ridicule, and ridicule men for dating?

Chubbs wants to have it both ways. He wants to play at being an alpha male, but he also wants the privileges of victimhood as a poor, oppressed beta. Indeed, in his bio, he describes himself, paradoxically, as a “bipolar, optimistic Alpha male who truly believes that Beta chumps like himself are doomed in today’s politically correct utopia.” Alpha or beta: which is it, dude?

In his post, he postures as an alpha even while recounting his own story of beta victimhood:

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.

Well, that kind of sucks, dude, but, you know, welcome to life. Sometimes life sucks.

It was gruelling.

No, the Bataan Death March was gruelling. You had a dry spell.  I’ve had dry spells. Everyone else I know has had dry spells. Virtually everyone in the world has dry spells. They can be really rough. But they’re not a fucking human rights violation.

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.

OH NO YOU WERE FORCED TO MASTURBATE

NEWS FLASH: Women aren’t obligated to jump on your stick every time you get a boner.

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.

Wait, how did we get from, boo hoo I have to masturbate to, well I might as well just kill a bunch of 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.

So it’s her fault for getting shot by a dude because she didn’t fuck him?

Am I saying Claire should have known better and had sex with Karl in advance? No. Claire was for all intents and purposes (looks, status, wealth) far out of Karl’s league. Yet there’s little doubt that there were many, many women in Karl’s high school who were in his league.

Oh, so it was some other girl’s fault that Claire got shot, because this other girl didn’t fuck him.

So why wasn’t Karl at home relieving his sexual frustrations with a girlfriend on par with his looks instead of simmering in anger alone, writing typical angry teenaged political messages on his Facebook and purchasing guns? It is because the inherent selfishness of all women has been allowed to run rampant in our Western societies.

How is it selfish for women to choose who they want to have sex with? No one is obligated to have sex with anyone they don’t want to have sex with.

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.

What the fucking hell? What planet are you living on and how on earth, even if this were true, does this justify murder?

Also: there is no epidemic of American men “forced to remain virgins into their twenties” by evil women. Indeed, the average American male loses his virginity just shy of age 17, slightly earlier than the average American female.

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.

Really? This little narrative describes the life of precisely zero women I have ever met.

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)?

NONE OF THIS IS TRUE WHY DO YOU GUYS PRETEND THAT IT IS WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU I DON’T EVEN

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.

IT’S NOT JUST A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MEN WHO ARE HAVING SEX WHERE DO YOU GET THIS SHIT ITS NOT TRUE WHY DO YOU

And society does not care until men like him pick up a gun and starts shooting.

And now we come to the blackmail portion of the rant: Sleep with us or we’ll kill you!

The assumed catalyst as to why Karl went on the rampage was that he was demoted by a teacher in charge of the debate team, and that this caused murderous frustration in him. Do you think Karl would have had so much murderous frustration if he was receiving as little as a blowjob every so often?

All he wanted was a blowjob! It is the sacred duty of every high school girl to seek out high school boys with the greatest surplus of murderous frustration and ease this frustration with sex.

So long as society encourages women of all ages to be the inherently promiscuous creatures they are and allow them to limit their sexual choices to the men at the top of the pyramid (when many of them have no right to), sexually frustrated men will continue to lash out with extreme violence.

Wait, so after demanding that women be more promiscuous, you’re berating them for being promiscuous?

Not that I’m surprised in the slightest.

The Columbine’s will continue. The Sandy Hook’s will continue. The Arapahoe’s will continue. Until society sits down and thinks over these problems with an unclouded mind, men will continue the shootings. More people will die just so Jane Doe can continue to ‘explore’ her sexuality until she hits the wall.

So young men should be guaranteed sex — OR ELSE THEY’LL SHOOT YOU — but young women are somehow evil for having sex with men who aren’t murderously frustrated nerds?

Of course, it’s always easier to scream, “PRESCRIPTION DRUGS! GUN CONTROL MENTAL ILLNESS!” and ignore the root of the problem and twiddle one’s thumbs until the next shooting. For many men, hundreds of thousands of them, they live in a mentally ill society. It’s a testament to either their humanity or their cowardice that more of them do not lash out like this.

And it’s a testament to your lack of humanity that you even think like this.

601 replies on “Return of Kings blog: High school girls are responsible for school shootings because they won't have sex with nerds”

… male violence can be dampened by circumstance. And one circumstance is a mate … Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have argued cogently that a good part of the difference [between murder rates of married and unmarried men] may lie in “the pacifying effect of marriage”.

Murder isn’t the only thing an “unpacified” man is more likely to do. He is also more likely to incur various risks – committing robbery, for example – to gain the resources that attract women. He is more likely to rape …

It is not crazy to think that there are homeless alcoholics and rapists who, had they come of age in a pre-1960s social climate, amid more equally distributed female resources, would have early on found a wife and adopted a lower risk, less destructive lifestyle.

And yet, here are all these MRAs and PUAs, ignoring not only the subjunctive “may” in the first paragraph (meaning it’s not an absolute given that single men will all, or even most, act this way, but simply a speculative musing on the part of the authors) but also the qualifiers and further speculation in the second and third. A hypothesis is not Biotruth™, but they seem to have taken this musing as just that. Their reading comprehension needs a lot of work.

And, in a further irony, they are doing their bullheaded (one can’t very well call it “level”) best to embody the very worst part of the speculation themselves: remaining willfully unattached — by itself, not necessarily a bad thing, but toxic in combination with their MRA/PUA admixture of backward sexism and behavior which is antisocial to the point of sociopathy. They are deliberately making themselves obnoxious in an effort to assert a dominance which can only repel women further. And to defend it, they snap, lash out…and alienate still further the intended targets of their efforts!

Thanks for the cite, BTW. It’s very enlightening, especially in the degree to which they’ll twist it to suit their cockamamie ends.

It is not crazy to think that there are homeless alcoholics and rapists who, had they come of age in a pre-1960s social climate, amid more equally distributed female resources, would have early on found a wife and adopted a lower risk, less destructive lifestyle.

Yes. Because everyone knows that were drastically fewer homeless alcoholics and rapists. (Also, WTF, homeless people are far more likely to BE raped than be doing the raping. Where did this guy’s stats come from?)

@ dallasapple
Douches are not a female thing. They are an act of violence against women. Please do not ever use one. Please do not ever recommend that any person ever use one. They are dangerous and harmful. They should not be legal. Their very existence is an act of violence against women.

Yes. Because everyone knows that were drastically fewer homeless alcoholics and rapists. (Also, WTF, homeless people are far more likely to BE raped than be doing the raping. Where did this guy’s stats come from?)

Assfax again, I bet…

And yeah. Alcoholics and the homeless have always existed. Alcoholics because of the (bad) luck of the genetic draw, and the homeless due to a variety of factors: Mental illness, abusive families, lack of jobs/housing, and other miscellaneous points of maladjustment between individuals and their society. It has less and less to do with lady-distribution, in the end, and more to do with things that don’t fit a neat sex-linked theory based on, and backed up by, assfax.

I keep hearing this weird ‘douchebag is misogynist, so you can’t use it as a swear’ thing.

The whole reason I SAY douchebag is that it’s something gross and harmful done to your body that’s pushed on folks as something they need to do because of Reasons. It has nothing to do with being a “female thing.” I wouldn’t use the term ‘enema bag’ because enemas actually DO have some decent use, or at least so I thought, while douches just seem to ruin everything.

Also honestly, the more I look at the specific psychology of planned community violence, like school shootings, the more I think our concept of mental health versus ill health simply isn’t set up for addressing it as we are more. Most of the people who commit these crimes are mentally healthy, if your definition is “able to function in society effectively enough that you aren’t brought to the attention of clinicians”. The numbers on teen mass murderers is 30% mental health contact, which is the national average. There’s no reason to believe the mental health field can address this problem at all, nor is it reasonable to generalize between two widely varying groups with minimal overlap.

Plus, the guys we call douchebags ARE misogynists, as a general rule. That’s the whole point of using that word (though, of course, NOT that thing.)

@Auggz and Argenti
Arguing cogently that a good part of the difference may lie = Social Science at it’s finest

. He is also more likely to incur various risks – committing robbery, for example – to gain the resources that attract women.

Lifting weights also helps men attract women, so universal free gym membership would cause a drastic drop in crime rate. Fact.

It is not crazy to think that there are homeless alcoholics and rapists who, had they come of age in a pre-1960s social climate, amid more equally distributed female resources, would have early on found a wife and adopted a lower risk, less destructive lifestyle.

Someone isn’t aware of the actual distribution of violence. Also, a lot of mass murderers and serial killers were/are married. Why do I think he got his conception of violence from 80s gang movies?

He is also more likely to incur various risks – committing robbery, for example – to gain the resources that attract women.

This guy hasn’t seen Carousel, has he?

Homelessness skyrocketed during the Great Depression because people were too sad to marry.

And once again, as a left-handed gay/asexual trans guy on medication, I am totally statistically insignificant. *exasperated sigh* I can’t be in ANY studies, yeesh!

RE: Deoridhe

The numbers on teen mass murderers is 30% mental health contact, which is the national average.

Do you have a source for that? I’m really interested in the subject, for obvious reasons.

Also, to quote my friend and former roommate: “Chronic Assholism is not in the DSM.”

Shaun DarthBatman Day:

I got this far before I started cynically cackling:

“Women have much more social power and prestige than men. Women also have more economic and political power than men.”

Yeah, no. Basing an argument on something this wrong is like arguing that nuclear waste makes a tasty and healthy snack, or that snow is the hottest substance on earth. It’s the complete opposite of what really is.

re: The passage from Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal: This sounds a little like a biotruthy version of the Victorian “separate spheres, angel of the house” nonsense. The whole idea was that men were the ones who went out into the big rough cutthroat world where they had to do whatever they had to to survive, but then come home to a sheltered, innocent, loving wife who’s job it was to soothe and refresh her husband’s soul. The woman was the “civilizing” influence, so that the man didn’t have to worry about unmanly things like ethics and morality, his wife would take on his sins and cleanse his soul. Seriously. All those violent men, all those thieves and alcoholics and rapist need, is a good woman to take the blame. ::rolls::

Grumpycat, emilygoddess – yeah, that “female resources” line made me want to puke, too. Yes, seeing women as things to be fairly distributed among men (ie. “people”) is such a great mindset. What, women as humans, with our own resources and choices, thus not forced to marry simply for food and shelter? What a dreadful idea, it might cause sad boners and then where would we be?

Ah, AVfM — my response to so much of what they say is just “Statement assumes facts not in evidence.” But they all believe it so hard. And so much of it is contradictory, since as we know women are simultaneously all-powerful and completely incompetent. And feminism is the most powerful movement that no one supports. And satire involves making arguments that you actually believe (women are just asking to be raped & beaten, for ex) and then calling it satire.

I could give myself a concussion from all the head-desking I do whenever I read them, but I’ve padded all my desks.

Re “The Angel in the House” — did you know that John Ruskin came up with that whole silly thing after being traumatized by the sight of his bride’s pubic hair? Interesting trivia factoid from which you may draw your own conclusion (mine is that there was a crying need for comprehensive sex ed during that repressive era).

@brooked

@LookOutHesGotASquirtgun

Sparky already handled your comment nicely, but I’d like to add that I can say from personal experience that Psyche wards and psychotropic drugs aren’t deserved punishments handed out to raging assholes like the ROK crew for saying stupid, offensive things on the internet

Oh god I”m so fucking glad I missed Lookouthesgotasquirtgun. Because I’ve been sent to a psyche ward and put on drugs before (against my will) and I would’ve fucking torn a whole in them. So…Idk not ready to play nicely with the new kids atm? Cuz I”m not.

@falconer

Even at my most miserable-misunderstood-lonely-teen-boy-angst I didn’t wank three times a day. It would have come off in my hand!

Owwwwww…..

The distributed resources line reminded me of things I’ve read about how the ’60s ‘counterculture’ reproduced the sexism of the dominant culture. When I hear popular songs from that era, it’s really easy to see; somehow, a lot of people missed it the first time around. Example: Five O’clock World – “there’s a long haired girl who waits, I know / To ease my troubled mind”. Heaven forfend she has anything better to do than be her man’s refuge from a life of wage slavery, right? Also, the ‘brute man redeemed by the love of a good woman’ meme was threadbare by GB Shaw’s day. I wonder how much of the bad mindedness around marriages like mine is rooted in the belief that men without women are little more than bears with furniture (joke stolen from Rita Rudner).

Example: Five O’clock World – “there’s a long haired girl who waits, I know / To ease my troubled mind”. Heaven forfend she has anything better to do than be her man’s refuge from a life of wage slavery, right?

Right. And it’s not like her low-paid job, under a male boss who is constantly sexually harassing her, is even more soul-sucking than his, either. Nope, she’s a Happy Hausfrau! Totally gender-normative in every way, right down to her long hair (to attract Mr. Liquid Gold Sperminator, no doubt).

I find it so funny that misogynists actually expect women to accept the idea that we’re resources to be properly distributed. When they’re talking to other men it’s ridiculous enough, but when they write stuff directly addressed to women it really crosses the line into lulzy absurdity. Why won’t you be my resource you selfish bitch?

@Sparky

Women have much more social power and prestige than men. Women also have more economic and political power than men.

Women accomplish all of this this despite getting worthless non-STEM degrees, working less hours (due to maternity leave, PMS related maladies, etc), inventing nothing, holding fake jobs, depending on big daddy government, playing unchallenging video games, engaging in time-consuming hypergamy, something about hamsters etc.

Bina – there’s a very interesting discussion of Ruskin’s marriage in Phyllis Rose’s book Parallel Lives, about five Victorian marriages. The pubic hair theory (or possibly even just Effie Ruskin’s breasts being adult ones – her gown mightn’t have descended much further, so John mightn’t ever have seen her pubic hair) was proposed by Mary Lutyens, who’d studied the matter for years, but she herself has come to mistrust it, because it’s a bit “too good to be true”.

Ruskin had a hell of an isolated upbringing; he was raised virtually alone, and was still living with his parents at thirty. Pretty well everything worked against him having much familiarity with women in any sense, and his letters to Effie before they married are more to an ideal of womanhood than an individual. Certainly the artwork of the time wouldn’t have helped, because it did portray a very immature (hairless, small-breasted) type of figure. He did talk later about Effie as if there was something wrong with her, saying her body was not as lovely as her face and was “not formed to excite passion,” but that’s coming from his mind – she did after all marry Millais and have eight children.

I think it’s something about how women are really incompetent, but they have BOOOOOBS which all men are helpless to resist, not because they’re stupid or anything, nonono, they’re totally smarter, but their penises are just so strong that they take over their smart manbrains or something because Evolution and BIOLOGY.

Or something. Honestly, my dick has never taken over my mind, so I can’t fathom what the hell their deal is.

Bina – MRAs are gathered together in a clean, bright room flooding with sunlight.

Wait, you thought that they’d be scheming in a dark room, preferably a basement littered with empty pizza boxes and ramen cups? No, fuck that shit. It’s a bright ass room, at the top of a skyscraper somewhere in a city near you.

1: “Hm, I really hate the ‘Don’t Be That Guy’ thing a year ago. Why the hell did those feminazis presume ALL men to be rapists? I’m not a rapist! I’ve never raped a chick in my life!”

2: “Plus, they neglected the more important issue: false rape accusations. Why don’t feminists care about THOSE?”

3: “It’s because they’re MISANDRISTS, that’s why!”

Elam: “Well, then, I think it’s up to A Voice for Men to come up with an idea to highlight the large number of false rape accusations against men. After all, if feminists cared so much about rape, they should stop crying rape every time they get drunk.”

2: “Hm, how do we do that though?”

MRAs ponder this for a few moments. Or hours. Or days. Whatever..

1: “Why don’t we falsely accuse the person in charge of the ‘Don’t Be That Guy’ campaign with false rape reports? That’ll totally highlight how terrible these are and make people think!”

3: “Great idea! Expose those feminist lies! Then we can get them to stop making reports!”

Elam: “I LOVE IT! I’ll throw in a T-shirt for the best false report and promote it on my site! We’ll generate attention and wake people up to the truth!”

1: “This is the best idea yet!”

A few days later.

Everyone else: “WTF? MRAs are fucking assholes.”

MRAs: “Why aren’t we gettting more followers yet???”

Bina: Again? Is there ever a moment when they’re not complaining about false rape accusations that they don’t spend making false rape accusations?

Well, it looks like the Edmonton Police are about to get some calls on this, and there’s a support campaign building for Karen Smith (starting to, rather) on the Book of Face as well. So they’re not going to get away with this for long. We’ll see if harassment charges are laid…I do hope so!

They don’t seem to realize that, while flooding a college’s anonymous online form with rape reports might bog down the form and make it useless, flooding the actual police department is way more likely to get you arrested for intentionally making a false report.

o.O? Um…the guys always on about how women should face prosecution for false rape reports if the guy isn’t convicted // she retracts the claim // basically every standard besides the legal one about knowingly and intentionally filing false reports are filing reports that they know are false?

How are they impervious to magma? They must be, since by now they’ve surely dug deep enough to be surrounded by it.

“We shall show the evils of false accusations… by making A HOJILLION false accusations!”

“My god, that’s a genius! Then, if we succeed at making false accusations an instant criminal charge, we’ll get all of us thrown in jail!’

“MWAHAHAHA CHECKMATE FEMINISTS!”

LBT: I can try to scare it up for you when I’m on my computer, not my phone. I sited the study in a MetaFilter comment where I argued against the characterization of all murderers “mentally ill”, so I have it somewhere. It was a study of teenage mass murderers, so limited but extremely replace my subject group.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WOTH THE DELIBERATE FALSE RAPE REPORTS?!?!?! I just. URGGGGGGGGGGGH.

Sorry. So tired of their shit. Get a hobbie guys, really.

LBT: sure thing. 8D

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.