Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He needed to lower his standards, but we don't know if he had any sexual attraction to other women.
Also, I find it scary that his parents gave a statement describing him as "sweet." Until they got the cops involved, they probably had no idea what was going on his mind. I think they just left it up to therapists (and assumed he'd be honest there). Too-common modern-day parenting. Geez, have deep talks with your kids.
I'd never heard of PUAhate until this week, but is there a lot of talk of "lowering standards" in regards to women? If so, no wonder some guys are so miserable. People are not cars. You don't go shopping for a Mercedes, get turned down by the credit department and then buy a used Kia. People will be unhappy and make a lot of other people unhappy as long as they see each other as commodities, or status symbols.
The absolute truth is that if Rodger had wanted to have sex, or have a girlfriend, he easily could have. His mental illness precluded that, not his "too-high standards."
Uh, I think his stature alone would have made getting a girlfriend not easy. He suggested no women showed interest in him, and he wasn't a total shut-in. As he was cute facially and dressed okay, height is the simplest explanation, even taking into account he likely was a poor people-reader. If I knew his exact height, I could better predict whether it made him sexually invisible to almost all.
Also, it appears he had only 62 posts on PUA Hate, at least under his real name. (The site's being unfairly singled out.) Maybe he cut back on forum participation in general as he worked on his manifesto and other psycho activities. My guess is that began by late winter.
Last edited by goodheathen; 05-28-2014 at 11:13 AM..
It is interesting how the "no matter what you do in life, you still deserve nothing" mindset crops up both in the workplace (as scattered all over the City Data Employment forum) and in the dating world.
As you said, when it reaches the point where those who did "everything right" get nothing for their efforts, they are going to start questioning the society itself and the injustices within it. In short, they aren't going to be willing to "play ball" anymore and shoulder the burden of others while getting nothing out of it except "well, keep working harder" and "nobody owes anyone anything, no matter how hard they work."
Now, this doesn't apply to the killer - what he did was wrong and he was clearly off his rocker - but it does apply to the overall notion of trying to disassociate rewards from actions just so the privileged elite can have ever more at the expense of others.
That thinking, where there's a list of things to be done and then a reward follows, is flawed. There's no arbiter deciding what the "right" things are and when enough "right" things have been done to warrant a reward. Especially when the reward is another person.
I'm a person who tends to do the right thing, and people notice and comment. I used to, facetiously, say to some of them I knew well enough that it never got me laid. Some time back I quit saying that when I realized two things. The first was that I harbored some subtle resentment that my fundamentally decent nature didn't translate into success with women.
The second was the real eye opener. That's when I realized that my fundamentally decent nature did lead to success with women. It might not have gotten me BJs backstage, but I decided I could live with that.
That brings up the issue whether anti-bullying efforts focus too much on violence and sexist and group harassment and not enough on female-male stuff. I still remember a few girls who were mean to me, though they didn't scar me the way that girl did to him.
Uh, I think his stature alone would have made getting a girlfriend not easy. He suggested no women showed interest in him, and he wasn't a total shut-in. As he was cute facially and dressed okay, height is the simplest explanation, even taking into account he likely was a poor people-reader. If I knew his exact height, I could better predict whether it made him sexually invisible to almost all.
Also, it appears he had only 62 posts on PUA Hate, at least under his real name. (The site's being unfairly singled out.) Maybe he cut back on forum participation in general as he worked on his manifesto and other psycho activities. My guess is that began by late winter.
Go to the mall and look around. You will see short men with girlfriends, wives, children.
If he had not been mentally ill, he could be lying up in bed right now with a lovely woman. I would bet anything that the reason women did not show interest in him was because he didn't approach them, was awkward when he did approach them and gave off a scary vibe.
This whole idea that women are rated, then deemed desireable or not, and then blamed for a stranger's unhappiness, is bizarre and disturbing to me. When you (not you in particular) don't see someone as an individual, it makes it very easy to demonize them and assign all sorts of evil motivations to them.
Uh, I think his stature alone would have made getting a girlfriend not easy. He suggested no women showed interest in him, and he wasn't a total shut-in. As he was cute facially and dressed okay, height is the simplest explanation, even taking into account he likely was a poor people-reader. If I knew his exact height, I could better predict whether it made him sexually invisible to almost all.
Also, it appears he had only 62 posts on PUA Hate, at least under his real name. (The site's being unfairly singled out.) Maybe he cut back on forum participation in general as he worked on his manifesto and other psycho activities. My guess is that began by late winter.
I don't see how height made any difference. When I was in school there was a really short guy that all the girls thought was the cutest in the whole class. He had girls interested all the time. I've never heard any of my women friends comment on a guy's height one way or another. I personally wouldn't care if a guy is 5 foot tall or 6 foot plus.
This whole idea that women are rated, then deemed desireable or not, and then blamed for a stranger's unhappiness, is bizarre and disturbing to me.
Beyond the rating thing, what's amusing is that a lot of these guys talk about "5"s like they're the lowest of the low, someone you wouldn't want to be seen with in public. If we're rating people's attractiveness on a scale of 1-10, most people are going to be in the 4-6 range--it's the biggest part of the bell curve. You can't rule all those people out and then complain about others being shallow.
Beyond the rating thing, what's amusing is that a lot of these guys talk about "5"s like they're the lowest of the low, someone you wouldn't want to be seen with in public. If we're rating people's attractiveness on a scale of 1-10, most people are going to be in the 4-6 range--it's the biggest part of the bell curve. You can't rule all those people out and then complain about others being shallow.
No kidding. And the idea that people who are dating are consumers who are constantly rating each other on some human Consumer Report scale is alienating for everyone involved.
I don't see how height made any difference. When I was in school there was a really short guy that all the girls thought was the cutest in the whole class. He had girls interested all the time. I've never heard any of my women friends comment on a guy's height one way or another. I personally wouldn't care if a guy is 5 foot tall or 6 foot plus.
I work with a guy who is about 5'5", completely bald and has a pronounced speech impediment. Guess what? He's married and has two kids. I've never seen his wife and it doesn't matter what she looks like. They found each other and are living their lives, oblivious to the stereotypes they aren't following.
As you said, when it reaches the point where those who did "everything right" get nothing for their efforts, they are going to start questioning the society itself and the injustices within it.
I honestly don't get how the ever-lovin' do you apply this philosophy to relationships? Women aren't paystubs or trophies or such, they're human beings who have no more control over their attraction than men do. And by far the majority of men do actually manage to attract someone. (Women like to be in relationships too, you know.)
Quote:
In short, they aren't going to be willing to "play ball" anymore and shoulder the burden of others while getting nothing out of it except "well, keep working harder" and "nobody owes anyone anything, no matter how hard they work."
Again - how does this apply to relationships? What "burdens of others" do lonely people shoulder?
We seem to be back to the "why doesn't the universe reward me with a wonderful woman?" mindset. I can see being p.ssed about economic disparity, because damn. But it's not as if those very successful with women hoard a 1000 each. Also - well, women aren't money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
