Ok, not everybody is going to kill girls because they rejected you, but almost every man understand at least some of the feelings + frustrations he experienced (especially virgins).
To deny this is to deny the huge elephant in the room - the fact that men do have the primal need for sex, and when it's denied/suppressed, bad things happen as that need goes unfulfilled.
You know, speaking as a dude it's pretty insulting to see you insinuate that I'm some pent up murder machine held in check only so long as I keep my dick wet.
You're probably not. But if the mere observation that some men do risky, strange, violent things as part of their drive for sex strikes you as a personal insult, then you are too sensitive.
I think he's offended that one crazy person's actions have turned into a generalization about men (yes, "some men" qualifies it, but since you can't tell "some men" from all the other men, any action that's meant to affect these "some men" affects all men, hence nullifying the qualifier. Furthermore, your grandparent didn't even use the "some").
A much fairer (and still true) statement would be "some people do risky, strange, violent things as part of their drive for sex." If you want to further dissect the issue into the different kind of strange and violent things men do vs. other genders' behaviors, that's fine too, but by comparing Rodgers to "some men," the implication is made that his actions are endemic to men (they're not -- they're endemic to violent, crazy people).
Maybe a more cogent point is, crazy violent people find a ready culture of misogyny to hang their urges on. Again and again and again, its women that are the target. This can and should be changed. I hope one day soon its no more accepted to publish 'player handbooks' than it is to distribute KKK race hate messages.
I'm not focusing on his actions here. His actions were the result of pent up, dangerous, toxic emotions. The same emotions that are felt (albeit to a lesser degree) by most men.
Most men just channel that into something else, like entrepreneurship (ie Zuckerberg), or drugs/alcohol/video games.
That's an extremely unfair reading of the parent comment. If you want to make that as a general point, at least depersonalize it, addressing to 'someone' or 'anyone', rather than a second-person direct-address.
So? We are capable of empathy and understanding of lots of things, that being ethical we wouldn't do. It's not like a murderer or rapist is some kind of alien, that we cannot even comprehend. We do it all the time, in talk and in art. E.g:
Because it's just one kid. The sample size is too small.