Eliot Rodger and TFL or True Force Loneliness.

Azwaldo55

This weekend a young man named Eliot Rodger an extremely disturbed individual went on the rampage stabbing and murdering three male room mates with a knife before launching a drive by massacre with two handguns and an arsenal of ammunition from the wheel of his black BMW. Three more died including two young women and one more young man. Several others were shot and injured. Rodger also ran down and attempted to kill cyclists with his BMW. He fought a gun battle with cops before his car crashed and he died from a self-inflicted gunshot to the head.

Before he launched his rampage Rodger posted a series of video on Youtube in which he ranted about his repeated rejections by women. Rodger claimed he was a virgin who had never even kissed a girl and angrily blamed women in particular sorority girls and alpha male jocks who were successful with women for his own failure with and rejection by the opposite. He ranted that he would take pleasure righting this wrong by killing ever blonde sl*t he came across.

Roger was a member of online communities in which adult male virgins discussed their lack of success with and anger and frustration toward women.

The final video is that of a depraved unhinged mind full of self-pity, rage and frustration. He describes his victims as animals who deserved to slaughtered as animals because they treated him as a mouse. He claims all he ever wanted was love and to be loved by women.

This link is Eliot Rodger's 140 page manifesto in which he describes his descent into despair and ultimate murderous destruction:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/225936731?access_key=key-m7xk0kePAsy2MdKx3uH6&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

There are close parallels with the case of George Sodini who also launched a gun rampage in 2009 killing 3 and wounding 9 others at a gym. In a video Sodini describes a life of bitterness, loneliness and rejection by women.

A movement began in 2009 on Youtube started by Bill Greathouse or Bill1224601 calling itself True Force Loneliness or T.F.L. for short which he claims is a diagnosis for a pre-existing problem. Bill Greathouse rails against modern culture which champions materialism and good looks and superficiality which means that men who seek love and companionship but lack good looks, social skills, style and charm are forced to live lonely lives lacking sex, romance and success. After years of trying and trying and continuous rejection in time it tears men apart leading to hatred of the opposite sex and madness acted out in alcohol or drug abuse, violence, mental illness, homelessness, imprisonment, suicide or mass murder.

He describes the TFL movement as a support group for men across America and the world who cannot get females into their lives.
A conspiracy theorist Greathouse claims that the demonization of lone males by society has led to the phenomenon of lone male violence.
Basically according to his theory society creates losers and misfits and kooks who then get blamed for acting out and living lives they were forced to live in the first place.

A sample of Bill1224601

Naturally the TFL community became the object of ridicule which merely reinforces the mindset of alienated and isolated men who believe in the TFL dogma who claim through no fault of their own they are objects of ridicule and scorn because they are forced to live lonely lives.

Shakespeare's Sister

At a surface level, none of those three men look unattractive. The third guy/founder of TFL may have seemed odd. Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't seem a great place to be.

Counselling would be better for these men. An organisation where they can all gather for company would be a great thing, but the purpose of this particular one seems rather toxic and destructive.

Azwaldo55

Magaggie wrote: »

At a surface level, none of those three men look unattractive. The third guy/founder of TFL may have seemed odd. Being a conspiracy theorist doesn't seem a great place to be.

Counselling would be better for these men. An organisation where they can all gather for company would be a great thing, but the purpose of this particular one seems rather toxic and destructive.

I would imagine creating a gathering place for malcontents, mental cases and crazies is always to lead to trouble whether it is a beer hall in 1930s Munich, a radical mosque in London or an internet forum.

Standman

It's amazing the sense of entitlement and self pitying arrogance these men display.

Azwaldo55

Standman wrote: »

It's amazing the sense of entitlement and self pitying arrogance these men display.

In a goodlooking man wouldn't that be called self-confidence?
Consider a guy as handsome as Matthew McConaghy or Channing Tatum.
If both of those guys looked like some of the unattractive men in the TFL movement they too would be getting rejected by women constantly.
Men like this are judged on their looks and get slapped down by society every time.
It is amazing how society would treat these guys if they got new haircuts, stylish clothes, worked out, drove nice cars and had lots of money to throw around.
But that kind of proves their point doesn't it?
They are like streets kids with their noses pressed up against the cake shop window.:)

Shakespeare's Sister

But the first two guys are actually quite good-looking. Not physically unattractive at all!
The third guy, nothing wrong with how he looks either, but as I said, if a CT, probably came across as a bit of an oddball.

I think for sure they have self esteem problems, and should have gone for counselling - but part of counselling is encouraging clients to take responsibility for themselves, examine their own behaviour etc. I find it hard to believe their own attitudes weren't part of the problem.

Standman

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

In a goodlooking man wouldn't that be called self-confidence?
Consider a guy as handsome as Matthew McConaghy or Channing Tatum.
If both of those guys looked like some of the unattractive men in the TFL movement they too would be getting rejected by women constantly.
Men like this are judged on their looks and get slapped down by society every time.
It is amazing how society would treat these guys if they got new haircuts, stylish clothes, worked out, drove nice cars and had lots of money to throw around.
But that kind of proves their point doesn't it?
They are like streets kids with their noses pressed up against the cake shop window.:)

No, I wouldn't define self-confidence as "entitlement and self pitying arrogance" no matter what someone looked like.

I feel sorry for anyone who is lonely, but getting angry at women because you have been "denied a life" by them does nothing but give you a convenient reason to wallow in self pity. If some day you become violent and unstable because of this then you have no one to blame but yourself.

Azwaldo55

Standman wrote: »

No, I wouldn't define self-confidence as "entitlement and self pitying arrogance" no matter what someone looked like.

A guy who looks like a move star or fashion model can be more sexually forward with women while if a guy who is overweight and poorly dressed would be called a sleaze ball if he tried the same. I've seen guys who are well dressed and well groomed but still ugly looking very bleak faced in nightclubs after obviously being told to f*ck off. Then you see an obnoxious looking prat who has been lucky to have the rights genes walking away with a stunner. How galling must that be for some men? How many guys get their head kicked in on their way home from clubs out of jealousy from other men?

I feel sorry for anyone who is lonely, but getting angry at women because you have been "denied a life" by them does nothing but give you a convenient reason to wallow in self pity.

Are uglier men forced to lower their standards because they can't get dates with the attractive looking women they really want? Must not that make some men resentful of their wives and girlfriends for not being the women they really want to be with?

If some day you become violent and unstable because of this then you have no one to blame but yourself.

I would consider myself quite good looking and successful with women.

If I was ugly and was a virgin at the age of 35 or 45 or 55 I don't think I would be very stable. I can't imagine how these guys avoid killing themselves or going crazy. In the past I suppose the priesthood was an option which could kind of soften the blow.

It would be bad enough to be paralyzed from the neck down and unable to perform sexually but I don't want to think what it must be like to be able bodied and to have functioning penis and not being able to have relationships and sex with women.

Shakespeare's Sister

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A guy who looks like a move star or fashion model can be more sexually forward with women

He doesn't need to be anywhere near that good-looking.
I don't know if you're missing me saying it but the first two guys are actually good-looking. I'd fancy them - if they had the right attitudes!

I've seen guys who are well dressed and well groomed but still ugly looking very bleak faced in nightclubs after obviously being told to f*ck off.

Bitches like that anger me, but blaming all women for it... it's about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

Then you see an obnoxious looking prat who has been lucky to have the rights genes walking away with a stunner. How galling must that be for some men? How many guys get their head kicked in on their way home from clubs out of jealousy from other men?

Indeed. But nobody is actually at fault here. Nobody is doing anything wrong to these guys.

Are uglier men forced to lower their standards because they can't get dates with the attractive looking women they really want? Must not that make some men resentful of their wives and girlfriends for not being the women they really want to be with?

Nobody's being forced to do anything.
If the attractive women whom they want to be with are not interested in them, nothing wrong is actually being done - these women not fancying them is not voluntary.
Settling is a choice - you can't resent someone for not being attractive enough when you're the one who settled for them (applies to both genders).

I don't want to think what it must be like to be able bodied and to have functioning penis and not being able to have relationships and sex with women.

I know. It's a fecking crap hand to be dealt, but there is nobody at fault.

I personally think extremely few people are "ugly". Extremely few people are stunning too. Most people are average-looking. I think sometimes it's a person's own attitude that holds them back (whether it's a resentment of women/men, a lack of self esteem, crippling shyness, etc) and I think therapy is a wise option to go for in these cases.

Standman

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A guy who looks like a move star or fashion model can be more sexually forward with women while if a guy who is overweight and poorly dressed would be called a sleaze ball if he tried the same.



Are uglier men forced to lower their standards because they can't get dates with the attractive looking women they really want? Must not that make some men resentful of their wives and girlfriends for not being the women they really want to be with?



I would consider myself quite good looking and successful with women.

If I was ugly and was a virgin at the age of 35 or 45 or 55 I don't think I would be very stable. I can't imagine how these guys avoid killing themselves or going crazy. In the past I suppose the priesthood was an option which could kind of soften the blow.

It would be bad enough to be paralyzed from the neck down and unable to perform sexually but I don't want to think what it must be like to be able bodied and to have functioning penis and not being able to have relationships and sex with women.

If you can't have a relationship with woman you want then yes you will have to try someone else. There's no other way around it, one person is not entitled to a relationship with another. You might even - shock horror - have to consider that there is something you could do in your own life to improve your chances of having the relationship you want, and that it's not simply "society holding you down".

Also, if you get into a relationship or marry someone simply because you find them attractive then I think that relationship is doomed from the start.

Regarding Eliot Rodger, he was a very disturbed individual and if he couldn't get in a relationship with someone then I think it's safe to say it was for reasons other than his looks, and that should be plainly obvious. Here's a handsome guy with a fancy black BMW; if (according to what these "TFL" guys seem to think) women really only care about good looks and material things then he should have had no problem. To frame his crazy rants, "manifesto", and subsequent deadly rampage as the result of him being driven to the edge because of "forced loneliness" is way, way off the mark I think.

Orim

I haven't done a huge amount of reading on the topic but I have to say that a lot of the rhetoric smacks of treating women as a possession.

Thoie

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A guy who looks like a move star or fashion model can be more sexually forward with women while if a guy who is overweight and poorly dressed would be called a sleaze ball if he tried the same.
<...>
Are uglier men forced to lower their standards because they can't get dates with the attractive looking women they really want? Must not that make some men resentful of their wives and girlfriends for not being the women they really want to be with?

If I was ugly and was a virgin at the age of 35 or 45 or 55 I don't think I would be very stable. I can't imagine how these guys avoid killing themselves or going crazy.
<...>

I had only caught snippets of Rodgers' video, and extracts from his manifesto (and it's a bit late to go through them all now), but pretty much everything Azwaldo said above could be easily gender swapped, or even better, made gender neutral, and still hold.

It boils down to "good looking people are more likely to score/have a partner".
Many ugly/not great looking people worldwide avoid killing themselves and going crazy just because they haven't found a partner.

pwurple

Thoie wrote: »

It boils down to "good looking people are more likely to score/have a partner".
Many ugly/not great looking people worldwide avoid killing themselves and going crazy just because they haven't found a partner.

And many ugly/not great looking people HAVE a partner, while plenty of good looking people remain single.

The two or three best looking guys I know are gay.

That guy is a nutter, as clearly evidenced by a gun rampage. I wouldn't consider this kind of nonsense as an excuse for that behaviour.

GalwayGuy2

Honestly, I'd rather these type of threads weren't started here.

It's too dodgy and agenda driven.

Dravokivich

I think the last thing these guys needed was sitting around on online forums/chats with people having the same issues and then telling each other how shíte and degrading it is to have no intimate association/experiences with women. It's just feeding their problems and won't give them any answers.

Orim wrote: »

I haven't done a huge amount of reading on the topic but I have to say that a lot of the rhetoric smacks of treating women as a possession.

Going by the OP, it seems that women are desired but never seen as achievable. There is no possession at all, nor does possession seem to be the intent. I haven't had a chance to read the manifesto or look at the video's yet, is there anything in either to suggest there is? Or are you coming to the conclusion because Eliot appears to be focused solely on sex and the lack of it?

Sleepy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Are uglier men forced to lower their standards because they can't get dates with the attractive looking women they really want? Must not that make some men resentful of their wives and girlfriends for not being the women they really want to be with?

Quite frankly: yes. In much the same way that those without the academic ability to become a doctor are forced to lower their sights to a more attainable career, or those of us born without the athletic prowess to become millionaire Premier League footballers are forced to settle with an office job and a weekly 5-a-side. In the simplest of terms, it's called accepting reality.

Of course, there are plenty of physically unattractive men who have made themselves attractive to women (or other gay men) in other ways: by becoming rich and/or powerful, by having another natural talent (e.g. singer / actor) or simply by being very funny. In many senses, it's actually more within our control as men to increase our attractiveness than it is for women. Sure, they have make-up, push-up bras, high heels etc. but since it's primarily looks that a woman is judged on in the dating world, they don't enjoy the same variety of opportunities to make themselves more attractive in other ways that men do (e.g. career progression or simply living an interesting life...)

While the idea of "perfect 10's" etc. is childishly simplistic, someone who's a 3 has to set their sights realistically. They can step up a few points in terms of how attractive a partner they can reasonably expect to attract by being well groomed, keeping themselves in good shape, developing an interesting hobby or giving up their job in cybergenics to go and plant trees in some fuckin' place and smuggling Crocrobian children over the border to get to safety using their knowledge of missile tactics Even then, they probably can't expect to attract a "perfect 10" who's not only beautiful but funny, kind, sexually adventurous and also a thought provoking conversationalist to boot. The same is true for both genders, all sexualities, races or any other sub-categorizations of humanity you want to choose: we have limits to what we can reasonably expect to attain in life. And while some very remarkable people manage to surpass those limits, the path that one follows in refusing to accept them leads to misery far more frequently than it does to happiness.

Orim

Dravokivich wrote: »

Going by the OP, it seems that women are desired but never seen as achievable. There is no possession at all, nor does possession seem to be the intent. I haven't had a chance to read the manifesto or look at the video's yet, is there anything in either to suggest there is? Or are you coming to the conclusion because Eliot appears to be focused solely on sex and the lack of it?

It's not just Eliot but that whole TFL stuff. It comes across to me that they want a woman in the same way you might want a car or a house. The woman would be there to fulfil a need, as opposed to any real interest in a woman as person.

One of the main things that leads me there, is the repeated references to women as a whole rather than individuals.

Thoie

Orim wrote: »

It's not just Eliot but that whole TFL stuff. It comes across to me that they want a woman in the same way you might want a car or a house. The woman would be there to fulfil a need, as opposed to any real interest in a woman as person.

One of the main things that leads me there, is the repeated references to women as a whole rather than individuals.

It's not just that they want something - it's this sense that they're entitled to it. They feel entitled to a partner, and anyone who goes against that (the woman who turns down their request for a date, for example), is denying them their rights, and that justifies them in using any means necessary to enforce their rights. It's a crazy mindset.

Most people, as children, had this assumption that you'd grow up and get married, and live happily ever after. But as you got older you realised it wasn't a given - real life didn't work out like that, and some people do end up lonely, with or without a partner. It's not a new phenomenon. There have always been "spinsters" and "bachelors" (though it's interesting to note that bachelor doesn't have the same negative connotations as spinster).

OldRio

Mad as a box of frogs.

Sleepy

Thoie wrote: »

It's not just that they want something - it's this sense that they're entitled to it. They feel entitled to a partner

I think this is a major factor for many of the millennials. They've been raised to believe they're special snowflakes that deserve idyllic lifestyles and seem to have poor coping skills when faced with the reality that this isn't the case.

mikom

Repeat after me.

"My life is not a movie...... my life is not a TV show".
.
.

diveout

Sleepy wrote: »

I think this is a major factor for many of the millennials. They've been raised to believe they're special snowflakes that deserve idyllic lifestyles and seem to have poor coping skills when faced with the reality that this isn't the case.

Absolutely. And it will get worse.

This is all due to sensitivity training -ahem - tyranny.

Now colleges have moved from political correctness to the empathetically correct - to the extent that The Merchant of Venice comes with a trigger warning and students get traumatised by Tess of the D'urbuvilles.

Seriously, if you can't cope with The Merchant of Venice what hope is there.

It's also the entitlement, the power in victimisation which has contributed to this. The ITS NOT FAIR tape running through their heads. I have a friend who is a philosophy professor and has had several lawsuits from students because he didn't give them the grades they felt they deserved. Imagine. A lawsuit for that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/05/empathetically-correct-is-the-new-politically-correct/371442/

Sleepy

That's a depressing read...

bnt

Some of the comments here can be paraphrased as "if you're lonely, it's your own fault". I can imagine that becoming a bit tiresome after a while - to be told "you're doing it wrong, go away", with no follow-up, no constructive advice on how to do it "right". The closest some guys get to "helpful" advice is the pick-up artist (PUA) scene, which is a horror show on its own. :eek:

Azwaldo55

bnt wrote: »

Some of the comments here can be paraphrased as "if you're lonely, it's your own fault". I can imagine that becoming a bit tiresome after a while - to be told "you're doing it wrong, go away", with no follow-up, no constructive advice on how to do it "right". The closest some guys get to "helpful" advice is the pick-up artist (PUA) scene, which is a horror show on its own. :eek:

If you are lonely it IS your own fault. If person is pathologically selfish, morbidly self-centered, hateful, narrow minded, willfully stupid and makes no effort to socialize with other people then yes they deserve to be alone.

Thoie

bnt wrote: »

Some of the comments here can be paraphrased as "if you're lonely, it's your own fault". I can imagine that becoming a bit tiresome after a while - to be told "you're doing it wrong, go away", with no follow-up, no constructive advice on how to do it "right". The closest some guys get to "helpful" advice is the pick-up artist (PUA) scene, which is a horror show on its own. :eek:

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If you are lonely it IS your own fault. If person is pathologically selfish, morbidly self-centered, hateful, narrow minded, willfully stupid and makes no effort to socialize with other people then yes they deserve to be alone.

Sometimes people are lonely through no particular fault of anyone. This is true for people in relationships as well - a bad relationship can be very isolating, depending on circumstances.

People can be lonely without being selfish, hateful, self-centered, etc. I wouldn't say anyone necessarily deserves to be alone, but the bare facts are that some people are, and they just have to get on with it. No-one owes them companionship.

Azwaldo55

Thoie wrote: »

Sometimes people are lonely through no particular fault of anyone. This is true for people in relationships as well - a bad relationship can be very isolating, depending on circumstances.

People can be lonely without being selfish, hateful, self-centered, etc. I wouldn't say anyone necessarily deserves to be alone, but the bare facts are that some people are, and they just have to get on with it. No-one owes them companionship.

Not Elliot Rodger that's for sure.

The guy talks about how he fantasized about becoming all powerful and stopping everyone from having sex. He says he saw sex as an evil and barbaric act all because he was denied the pleasure of having it. He believed that outlawing sex would make the world a safer and better place.

HerrScheisse

When I read the term "gentleman" I think top hat. A cane. A hard hand crafted top hat with a wooden case so it does not lose its shape. Perhaps a monocle for those gentlemen that wish to be a tad aristocratic, a dab dandier.

For the nouveau riche, a specially made fireapple red candlewax wall to crawl upon and fall floppingly to the Persian carpeted floor failingly, realising the folly and tastelessness of being nouveau riche.

But self-confessions in a car do not belong in a gentleman's forum.

That is just uber! Cancel it sir! UIn the name of all things gentlemanly cancel it!

HerrScheisse

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I would imagine creating a gathering place for malcontents, mental cases and crazies is always to lead to trouble whether it is a beer hall in 1930s Munich, a radical mosque in London or an internet forum.

Or a fight club!

HerrScheisse

I would say there is no perfect . Life is as it is and you make the best of it no matter what cards you have been dealt; Simple philosophy as it seems, it makes more sense than most party political agenda.

Shakespeare's Sister

bnt wrote: »

Some of the comments here can be paraphrased as "if you're lonely, it's your own fault".

Well it's not as brutal as that. It's more that, it could be just sh-tty luck, but if it's a neverending experience for someone, maybe they need to harness whatever tools they have for doing something to help themselves. That includes seeking help from other people - it doesn't have to be entirely up to the individual.