• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven dead in drive by California shootings

Well yes, but the name is a little deceiving. One might get the impression from the phrase "anti-PUA" that these people have some kind of ideological opposition to PUAs - say, their objectification of women, maybe; but the truth is, the only problem that anti-PUA sites actually have with PUAs is that the latter's techniques for scoring vagina aren't effective.

The site PUAhate.com doesn't seem to be working anymore; but here's an editorial from a couple of years ago describing the site.

The PUAhate site has only been temporarily taken down, until this "blows over."

I've spent a lot of time on that site over the past few years, because I find the discussions of attraction and facial aesthetics that take place there to be quite interesting (there are many threads about what makes a face attractive, etc).

The philosophy of the main forum at the PUAhate site, in a nutshell, is that PUAs are scammers and hucksters because they claim that their techniques work, when in actuality all attraction is based on LMS, which means looks (in terms of handsomeness and masculinity), money, and status, and that women are only attracted to the top 20% or so of men with the best looks, money, and status. The site is a mix of bitter "incels" who claim to be incapable of success with women because of their lack of looks, money, or status, and other members who are actively trying to improve their LMS to achieve better success.

Obviously there are aspects of truth in the discussions that go on there, but they take things too far and extrapolate extreme examples (female attraction to top male models/celebrities/billionaires) into applications to everyday life that are just not justified.

It's also a site with a lot of trolling, so it's sometimes hard to know what people are serious about.
 
Last edited:
I've read a few manifestos - the Unibomber, Breivik - and I always think I'm going to pick up some key insight about their mental process. But I never really do. The best I can gather this time, with both the manifesto and the videos, is that the kid seemed defective - in a non-specific, odd and creepy kind of way.

If all it takes to get angry enough to kill is a life full of unmet expectations... well, that's troubling.

How many more very much like him are out there?
 
Yeah, good points, actually. In fairness, though, the other members of that site, based on the cached posts I've read, basically said he was a loser for doing this, which indicates that he was at odds with their views and ideals.

It doesn't seem to be their views and ideals that he was at odds with - it looks to me like he shared them pretty well. It seems to me the difference was his decision about what exactly to do about the "problem". The other folks on the website may constitute the bottom rung on the ladder of social intellect but - thankfully - they weren't killers like he was.
 
It doesn't seem to be their views and ideals that he was at odds with - it looks to me like he shared them pretty well. It seems to me the difference was his decision about what exactly to do about the "problem". The other folks on the website may constitute the bottom rung on the ladder of social intellect but - thankfully - they weren't killers like he was.

Well, not really, because the goal of most on that board is to maximize their looks, their money, and their status, which, while perhaps shallow and jaded, are genuine forms of self-improvement. I don't think anyone can deny that someone who maximizes these things is certainly going to be more successful with the opposite sex, all other things being equal, so they aren't entirely misguided.
Many of the guys on the board just want a girlfriend, and so want to maximize their chances of getting one. Whether they are going about it the right way or not is another matter.
So when you say he shares their views and ideals, I have to disagree. The ideals on that board are to maximize oneself to the greatest extent possible, and then enjoy life as much as possible. Not lash out and kill people in frustration.

This guy just basically said, "I'm awesome and great, and girls should be falling all over me, but their not, so I'm lonely, and now I'm going to kill everyone for revenge" instead of looking at what kind of things he could improve about himself. PUAhate encourages acknowledging and accepting one's limitations, and doing the most one can to overcome them. The complete opposite of what this guy did.

Whether PUAhate members have a correct understanding of what one's limitations actually are is another issue, but not really relevant to my point.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, his parents had him evaluated after seeing the videos, but he acted normal during the evaluations, so nothing was done.

I don't see any reason to read "mental illness" into this dude's actions unless you believe that all murderers are de facto mentally ill.


I fully understand what you're saying, and I am telling you that it is misogynistic nonsense of the same strain that poisoned the mind of the fellow we're all discussing.

*Doesn't see reason to read "mental illness" in highly abnormal behavior*
*Claims jokes about cars getting people laid is the cause*

Makes sense. ;)
 
Well, not really, because the goal of most on that board is to maximize their looks, their money, and their status, which, while perhaps shallow and jaded, are genuine forms of self-improvement. I don't think anyone can deny that someone who maximizes these things is certainly going to be more successful with the opposite sex, all other things being equal, so they aren't entirely misguided.
Many of the guys on the board just want a girlfriend, and so want to maximize their chances of getting one. Whether they are going about it the right way or not is another matter.
So when you say he shares their views and ideals, I have to disagree. The ideals on that board are to maximize oneself to the greatest extent possible, and then enjoy life as much as possible. Not lash out and kill people in frustration.

That's funny. The author of the Jezebel piece who visited the board seemed to have gotten the impression that the goal of most on that board is to complain that women are vicious c-words who don't "put out". Just to clarify, you're saying that "the ideals" on that board involve coveting and positively cultivating this "looks, money, and status" trifecta you repeatedly mention, rather than discussing women in objectifying and expletive-laden terms?
 
That's funny. The author of the Jezebel piece who visited the board seemed to have gotten the impression that the goal of most on that board is to complain that women are vicious c-words who don't "put out".

Are you implying that Jezebel is an objective, unbiased source?
 
That's funny. The author of the Jezebel piece who visited the board seemed to have gotten the impression that the goal of most on that board is to complain that women are vicious c-words who don't "put out".

That has not been my impression. Most of them simply lament the fact that they don't believe they live up to the standards of male attraction that they believe are necessary to attract the women they desire. Most acknowledge that it is not the fault of the women that they happen to be attracted to the men they happen to be attracted to. They accept that it is simple biology. They do often lament what they consider to be a failure on the part of women to recognize or acknowledge the favorable position (in the eyes of the PUAhate members) they have in the dating/mating "game" in terms of being the "choosers" (i.e., the perception/reality that men are frequently more inclined to have sex with women than the women are to want to have sex with them).


Just to clarify, you're saying that "the ideals" on that board involve coveting and positively cultivating this "looks, money, and status" trifecta you repeatedly mention, rather than discussing women in objectifying and expletive-laden terms?

Yes, I am saying that. A large percentage of the discussions there involve what types of plastic surgery to get and what methods of physical improvement would be best. People there rate each other's looks, sometimes to an admirably technical extent, and offer advice on how to improve. It's popular to attempt to "morph" photos of members to demonstrate how they would look once this advice was taken, and to assess how much success such changes would bring in terms of attracting female attention.

Although I would hasten to add that there is plenty of the other thing as well (discussing women in objectifying and expletive-laden terms). This is not the purpose of the board, however.

Like any message board, it attracts quite a mix of individuals, so of course there is a spectrum of characters, attitudes, and beliefs. Many men who become interested in "PUA" techniques simply want to learn how to be more attractive to the opposite sex, not because they view women as objects, but because they want to figure out how to attract and enjoy the presence of women in their lives. When they realize that most PUA techniques and approaches are bogus and misguided, and actually turn women off or have no impact, some turn to the PUAhate boards and become disciples of the belief that LMS is the key to attracting and enjoying the company of women. To assume that the desire to become more attractive to women is mysoginistic in and of itself is, to me, misguided.

This in no way is meant to deny that there are many aspiring PUAs or PUAhaters who are mysoginistic, or that their beliefs and approaches are quite frequently questionable at best. But to paint them all that way is a mistake. If you follow such things, you soon find that there are many, many of them who simply want to meet women so that they can find a nice girl and settle down. And for a variety of reasons, they are having trouble doing so and seek out help.
 
Last edited:
I fully understand what you're saying, and I am telling you that it is misogynistic nonsense of the same strain that poisoned the mind of the fellow we're all discussing.

It's not nonsense at all. Lot's of women are gold diggers. There are lots of women out there that would go with guys just because they have money. That's not misogynistic... it's fact. Men are 100 times worst.... I'm not anti-male.... just saying the truth.
 
Well, this isn't A+ or FTB, so I wouldn't want you censured in any way, but I think everyone is offended that you would say that "shootings" and "terrorist attacks" stem from men being unable to get laid.

I didn't say all... But I think a good chunk do.
 
I didn't say all... But I think a good chunk do.

I'm not offended by your statement at all, and I agree with you that sexual frustration is probably often the trigger for these events, clearly in individuals who are poorly equipped mentally and emotionally to deal with such frustrations in a reasonable and rational manner.
 
i think this is it. it is not pleasant reading.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225936731/Untitled

one very disturbed kid.

Skimming around, page 56 stands out as most extreme, though he did start hating women before then because they were mean to him. He was also a WOW addict. But I've lost patience in reading more.

Naturally, self reporting, especially of a self-aggrandizing egoist, should be taken with a huge gain of salt.
 
Elliot Rodger said:
Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female.

Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy. Women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such.

Yep, I'd say he was tad misogynistic.
 
Apparently, his parents had him evaluated after seeing the videos, but he acted normal during the evaluations, so nothing was done.

I don't see any reason to read "mental illness" into this dude's actions unless you believe that all murderers are de facto mentally ill.

It's just silly dehumanization. Turn all criminals and undesirables into monsters and demons, or in this case "insane people" and "disturbed people". They are just archetypes of how "normal humans" don't act like rather than functioning human beings.

It sets us up to be "surprised" again when the same traits show up elsewhere, in other places, perhaps at a lessened level but with the same misguided goals and logic behind them.
 
I think it's a legitimate question. Sex is a biological imperative, so it stands to reason that those who aren't able to get it are going to become damaged in some way. I think this is a good argument for legalization of prostitution. It's a way for people who aren't attractive, for whatever reason, to get their needs met.

Interesting. As someone that has never been able to have sex I wonder just how I ended up "damaged." I think it is possible to never have the opportunity to have sex and not turn out to be some sort of monster. But that's just me.

The other thing is... he's driving a beamer.... how can you not get laid? You drive one of them where I live and we might have to lock up our wives.

I drove a 1967 BMW convertible for awhile when I was in college. I never even got within a mile of a date. I suspect most women are not as into flashy cars as advertising execs would have us believe.

And the fact that a normal-looking 22-year-old dude with rich parents who is driving a Beemer can't get laid DEFINITELY speaks to his MASSIVE MENTAL ILLNESS.

Well I was really shy. That's the main reason I had such a car and never had sex. Are you lumping "shy" in with MASSIVE MENTAL ILLNESS?
 
I'm not sure that there was anything clinically wrong with him, going by his own writing.
He just seems to have been massively overindulged by one parent and virtually ignored by the other.
He might have had some sort of personality disorder which may have been exaggerated by his anti-social interests and the misogynistic nature of the PUA stuff that he got into, but it's hard to tell from one fairly short source.

He never really seemed to see others as people, though.
They're either rivals, unthreatening and ineffective allies, sources of things that he wants or something denying him those desires.
 
I don't think that's true at all. Sex may be a biological imperative; but it's rather provably not damaging to not have sex.

I have to question that. Physically it is known that having sex in some case helps avoid cancer (men, testicular cancer for example). Psychologically, some people losing their hability to have sex without losing the sex drive (men , prostate ablation for example) get depression and may lead to suicide.

ETA: masturbation / solo count as sex by the way. So if you meant "sex with a partner" you are right.
 
Last edited:
Be careful. If you're about to insist that MRA "talking points" are confined solely to custodial rights or female-on-male domestic violence to the exclusion of hating on women that won't have sex, I suggest you take a look at what contributors to MRA forums actually spend their forum posts talking about most.

Firstly you are speaking of poster in a forum. By that standard no group whatsoever fare well. Not even ours. Secondly MRA talking point and action are one thing, and people talking on a forum another. MRA talking point should be judged on their own, not because some poster are chauvinist.

And we can open another thread if you want , but indeed female on male violence is often ignored or under played, societal warped view that women are non violent, and custodial right battle often unfair due to warped societal view that one gender can build a family and nurture children and the other not. Both point which seem often to be underplayed or ignored.

That said, I do not support MRA, but neither do I support FRA, I think the only valid view is to support gender equality.
 

Back
Top Bottom