The daffy, excitable Man Going His Own Way who calls himself MarkyMark may be my favorite manosphere blogger of all. Not only does he bring the lulz himself – who can forget the time he wrote a completely unironic point by point rebuttal of an Onion article? – but he also helps to bring attention to the equally stupefying work of others.
In his latest post, he directs our attention to some observations made by fellow MGTOWer Spock’s Disciple on the Happy Bachelors forum on the subject of pussy and its discontents. “This is good stuff, stuff my boys need to read,” Mark writes. “[Spock’s Disciple], like his hero, applied cold hearted logic when analzying pussy. The Force is STRONG with that one!”
Yes, he actually wrote that. I don’t think it’s a joke. I think he honestly does not know that there is a difference between Star Trek and Star Wars. How that is possible, I do not know.
Anyway, on to the eminently rational Spock’s Disciple, reflecting on the irrational power of the ladybits:
Remember that pussy is a biochemical WMD; wherever it is used, there is mass chaos and destruction. How many wars and conflicts have been fought at the urging and behest of women? More than any honest man would admit to and would be proud of.
Young men are apparently helpless in the face of the punany:
The need for pussy is a very real and built in addiction for men. We are hardwired by nature for sex and procreation. … [T]he sight and sound of pussy blinds younger men and allows them to be controlled by women though their hormones.
The, uh, SOUND of pussy? If I had to pick just two (or three, or four) sensory experiences relating to the vagina that would be generally considered appealing to heterosexual males, I’m not sure “sound” would make the cut.
But eventually even the horniest dudes start to get less horny – and thus less hypnotized by the power of the pussy. The only trouble is that by the time they lose interest in sex most of them are married, and they’re now stuck with the woman whose vagina formerly had them in thrall. It’s a grave injustice.
[W]hen most men pass the age of 30-35, they begin to awaken from this biochemical “dream” and what do they awaken beside? What do married men look forward to the next 30-50 years of their lives? Sleeping with a living corpse, which continues to torture and destroy them day by day? Looking forward to the time when the woman undergoes the process of metamorphosis, into a completely insane mummy (menopause and post menopause)?
This seems a tad alarmist. I mean, if your wife turns into a monster zombie-mummy – as all women apparently do after they hit their mid-thirties – you could always get separate bedrooms.
But Obi-Wan’s Spock’s Disciple has a more radical solution: don’t get into bed with the ladies in the first place!
Pussy is indeed way overrated and if younger men could get a shot of “anti-testosterone” for a few weeks, they could see through the eyes of men who are 40+; without the haze of hormones, you cannot believe how much farther you can see! It’s the difference between seeing the horizon through LA style smog and seeing the horizon from a high mountain in the Rockies.
Pussy is a man’s Achilles heel; once that man realizes this and takes the appropriate steps, he’ll never lose his peace of mind again. To these skeptical young men I say, there is an infinitely vast arena where you can have anything you desire, and can succeed at anything you wish to try for; all you have to do is see women for what they truly are, and become a master of the beast within; once you do that women’s true face will be visible to you, and you’ll never again partake of that foul potion.
It is possible to tame that beast, and indeed it is a certainty that you will learn much from the process of taming it; all it takes is patience and time. Look at your fellow men, your brothers in arms, and look at their almost invisible chains, and wonder at why you would desire such an existence for yourself?
And, hey, if all else fails, MarkyMark adds some advice of his own: pay a visit to Pamela Handerson before going out on the town with one of those vagina-people.
[T]here is one thing that the younger men can do until their sex drives die down permanently: masturbate before going out with a woman. … To put it another way, since the little head had been, shall we say, quieted down, the bigger head could work properly; the bigger head will then allow you to see a woman for who she REALLY is.
If you’re a fan of Spock, and looking for appropriate masturbatory material, might I suggest this?
Implying MGTOW have this invisible army of men who aren’t dating and follow their ideology, rather than being a tiny minority.
Can’t speak for all women, but I don’t ask men out…..because I don’t want to date men. Gave ’em up in ’82 and haven’t missed them.
Again, with the generalizations.
And it’s not as if women don’t ask women out on dates, and the more formal elements i remember from decades ago don’t seem to apply among my college students (they hang out in groups and then couples seem to well occur!).
I’ve asked nearly all of my past lovers/partners out first. I have no issue with asking men out. I don’t understand how anyone could not be comfortable with taking a small risk to get a big reward. Sure you can get turned down. I have been, but I’ve also had wonderful experiences (some quite long term) from asking men out. Is it really that rare in men’s experience that they don’t get asked out? And if they do, do they assume the women are slutty? Cause they can’t have that both ways.
@Blackbloc: “the lurkers support them in email”!!!11!!!
Need better trolls. The ones we have are already all used up and boring.
Dude, different people have different tastes. I love a local pizza joint, they make the best soft, thin crust pizza I’ve ever had. I would wake up in the middle of the night when I lived in Denver, upset because the nearest Scrib’s pizza was halfway across the country. But not everyone love Scrib’s. The use full-fat mozarella cheese, so the pizza is greasy – that’s a deal killer for a lot of people. The crust is thin, but not crispy, a deal killer for others. So the fact that I love this particular type of pizza is not a guarantee that everyone else will love it.
“@Joanna
The proof is that you won’t put your money where your mouth is. On your next several first dates why don’t you offer to skip the date and go right to sex and then report back the accept/reject results. We’ll be waiting.
Oh and by the way. Don’t all of a sudden get super picky. You gotta keep it real.”
Why should she? Given that she’s presumably going on dates with the intent of finding someone to date rather than in an attempt to prove you wrong, why should she follow your instructions? She’s not your performing monkey, kiddo. You’re going to have to dial down the imperious attitude if you want anyone here to engage with you.
Also, you’re making some odd assumptions about women and sex. I don’t generally have sex on the first date for all kinds of reasons both practical and emotional, but on a purely physical level I’ve already decided whether or not I’m attracted to someone before I go on a date with them. If someone asks me out and I don’t think I might eventually want to fuck them, I say no. The process during which I decide whether or not I actually will have sex with someone has nothing to do with attraction or lust or the lack thereof – it doesn’t take multiple dates to figure out if someone is hot – it has to do with protecting my own personal safety and figuring out whether or not if I do have sex with the guy he’s going to be a jerk about it. Because unfortunately men not being jerks to women because the women decided to fuck them is far from guaranteed.
Side note – this is why although I don’t fuck men who I’ve just met, I sometimes do with women.
BlackBloc: Agreed. We really need to attract a better class of troll. Even Meller and NWO are getting old. Surely there are wingnuts out there we haven’t mocked into flouncing!
Bionic,
That’s not how a woman gets a slutty reputation. Very few men think women who ask them out on a date are sluts. So that characterization is a case of convenient projection. I think the real truth is that there are a lot of women for whom slut shaming is a convenient excuse, because one, they are afraid of rejection and would rather prefer “initiation” be the man’s job. And two, that there’s also a certain power in being the chosen rather than the chooser. And I get all that.
I also think the idea that it’s OK to wait and do the right thing, until culture changes enough for one to feel comfortable is absurd. Slutwalks aren’t the way to get more women to do their fair share. Making women more confident isn’t the way to to get to women do their fair share either. Having confident women understand that the right thing to do is splitting the responsibility/excitement/fear/burden/whatever of arranging that 1st date, will actually get women to do their fair share.
DYE, I’ve never actually been asked out. I have had more than twenty non-platonic partners. Do the fucking math.
Feminists are far more likely to ask their partners out than non-feminists. Stop whining at us and go whine at Cosmo already.
“A woman for whom stigma really matters will not be having sex on the 1st date… with anybody…ever. But for those women who don’t adhere to such conventions the affect is way overstated and an excuse. Females just aren’t nearly as horny, indiscriminate, nor sexually consistent as males… and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
Why do women need an “excuse” for not wanting to have sex with someone? You are seriously fucked up if you think that they do.
Also I’m laughing at the idea that “indiscriminate” is a good thing. I know some very promiscuous men, but I wouldn’t call most of them “indiscriminate” in their choice of partners. Being truly indiscriminate is usually a sign of desparation and feeling like you lack options – men who have a wide variety of potential sexual partners to choose from are often just as discriminating as women. Just without the side order of having to take the possibility of being raped or not having an orgasm into consideration before every sexual encounter.
(Not that men can’t be raped, by the way, but in my experience very few of them consider the possibility when thinking about hooking up with a woman.)
About UnHeroicMan’s comment…dude, if you think that you and your little friends represent a broad societal trend you’re delusional. Observe our friend DYE above – does he look to you like he plans on going his own way any time soon? Most men want to be in relationships with women, even the ones who’re kind of sexist and inclined to feel pissy towards us. Very few human being have the monastic inclinations that would be required to Go Your Own Way permanently. Now if you were willing to accept gay men into your ranks then the number of men who were happy to swear off dating women would certainly be much larger, but since most of you guys are homophobic and most gay men don’t hate women you’re doomed to be a tiny group of pissed off dudes sulking in your little forums. Which by the way I’m glad that you’re doing, since if you stick to it you’re saving the women who might otherwise have had to deal with you a lot of hassle.
Back to DYE again!
“All it means is that men know what and who they want so unless all your dates have been blind…literally and figuratively, the guy who is sitting across from you he has already made up his mind he WILL fuck you. ”
You’re aware that this makes you sound like a potential rapist, right? He WILL fuck the woman he’s on a date with, regardless of how she feels about it? Congratulations – you’ve just demonstrated exactly why so many women are cagey about sex while they’re still getting to know a man. They’re trying to weed out men who think like you.
http://www.k-state.edu/actr/2010/12/20/gender-and-personality-differences-in-date-initiation-preferences-eric-shumaker/default.htm
From past research:
Granted, college student population, but a bit more info about what whiny Mr. “you are not doing your fair share” dude has shared.
This study:
What are they teaching trolls these days! Basic Google is not hard.
Yes, but then they have to actually read the links to see if it supports what they say it’s supporting.
And by that time it’s all, “TL;DR! Hey look! These stats just fell out of my ass! I should stick my whole head in there and see where they’re coming from!”
“Why do women need an “excuse” for not wanting to have sex with someone? You are seriously fucked up if you think that they do.”
Why do women need an “excuse” for not wanting to do anything they want to do? Well they don’t, but they do FEEL the need to make excuses all the time.
“You’re aware that this makes you sound like a potential rapist, right? He WILL fuck the woman he’s on a date with, regardless of how she feels about it?”
LMAO. You are aware that this makes you sound like you can’t read right? So I only wrote tons of comments (amidst lots of denial from others) about how dating is screening for women and you conclude that I’m saying that how she feels is irrelevant? Ok then.
Wait, I’ve just understood the math. No MRA has ever been asked out by a woman, therefore no woman has ever asked a man out. Thanks Heroic Man, now I understand!
DYE, there are still some men who do consider it “too forward” for women to ask men out. They want women to act demure and play hard to get. They equate confidence with being sexually free spirited. That’s why so many women buy the book The Rules, and then treat dating like some kind of game. Once again, though, the women that read The Rules and Cosmo for dating advice aren’t usually feminists. As a feminist, I want women to feel free to ask men or women out without fear of slut shaming.
Two reasons a woman might not ask you out:
1. She’s believes that asking someone out is a purely male responsibility
2. She doesn’t want to go out with you.
Don’t get too worked up about #1 before you’ve ruled out #2, is all I’m saying.
i will admit that men are more likely to be the one to ask someone out i guess, but i don’t know why these guys think that it’s still that set in stone or has anything to do with feminism. seems likes an awful awful convenient way to blame someone else for your lack of courage or initiative. Also yes women spend their lives obsessing about their looks which will never ever be good enough because it’s SO MUCH FUN! You can’t blame someone else for NOT asking you out, geez, thankfully we now live in a time where it’s not that big of a deal. It’s not like every girl is just dying to ask you out and is just dreaming of you doing it without giving you any signs or anything.
i just want to scream “what is your point?!?!” you think more women should ask out men. fabulous. you can say that. it’s not a conspiracy against men though!!
wo reasons a woman might not ask you out:
1. She’s believes that asking someone out is a purely male responsibility
2. She doesn’t want to go out with you.
Don’t get too worked up about #1 before you’ve ruled out #2, is all I’m saying.
YUP!!!!! Also i’m gonna assume with these guys they wouldn’t be satisfied with women asking them out that they didn’t want go out with.
See, now I can never go on a date without thinking “This guy only wants to fuck me.” Thanks for that DYE.
Yeah, seriously, DYE needs to speak for himself.
Hershele Ostropoler: The UCMJ has the age of consent at 16:
Art. 120– Rape and Carnal Knowledge
Guide Note: As part of the FY 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. Article 120 was formerly known as “Rape and carnal knowledge,” but is now entitled “Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.”
The new Article 120 creates 36 offenses. These 36 offenses replace those offenses under the former Article 120 and others that used to be MCM offenses under Article 134 (the “General” Article).
The new Article 120 replaces the following Article 134 offenses:
* Indecent assault
* Indecent acts or liberties with a child
* Indecent exposure
* Indecent acts with another
The UCMJ change also amends two Article 134 offenses:
(1) Indecent language communicated to another – other than when communicated in the presence of a child – remains punishable under Article 134. If the language was communicated in the presence of a child, then it is an Article 120 offense.
(2) Pandering (having someone commit an act of prostitution) is still an offense under Article 134, but if the pandering is “compelled,” it becomes an Article 120 offense.
The change also adds a new Article 120a, “Stalking.”
ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE
Rape
By using force: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by using force against that other person.
By causing grievous bodily harm: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.
By using threats or placing in fear: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
By rendering another unconscious: That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by rendering that other person unconscious.
By administration of drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance:
(i) That the accused caused another person, who is of any age, to engage in a sexual act by administering to that other person a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance;
(ii) That the accused administered the drug, intoxicant or other similar substance by force or threat of force or without the knowledge or permission of that other person; and
(iii) That, as a result, that other person’s ability to appraise or control conduct was substantially impaired. …
Rape of a child not yet 12
(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child; and
(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had not attained the age of twelve years.
Rape of a child who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years
By using force:
(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;
(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and
(iii) That the accused did so by using force against that child.
By causing grievous bodily harm:
(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;
(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and[emphasis added]
(iii) That the accused did so by causing grievous bodily harm to any person.
By using threats or placing in fear:
(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;
(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and
(iii) That the accused did so by threatening or placing that child in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping.
By rendering that child unconscious:
(i) That the accused engaged in a sexual act with a child;
(ii) That at the time of the sexual act the child had attained the age of 12 years but had not attained the age of 16 years; and
(iii) That the accused did so by rendering that child unconscious….
ndecent liberties with a child
(a) That the accused committed a certain act or communication;
(b) That the act or communication was indecent;
(c) That the accused committed the act or communication in the physical presence of a certain child;
(d) That the child was under 16 years of age; and
(e) That the accused committed the act or communication with the intent to:
(i) arouse, appeal to, or gratify the sexual desires of any person; or
(ii) abuse, humiliate, or degrade any person.
So no, the age of consent isn’t 12, and persons aged 12 are accorded extra protection to those under 12; which seems to be a recognition of the fact that pre/younger teens are especially vulnerable.
Ray Percival: How you answer the question is one thing, but the subject matter is another. I did information extraction. The answers I collected were not anecdotal in structure, but any of them could have been relayed as an anecdote, had I differently worded my interrogatories.
Studies of oral histories are mining of anecdote to get broader social patterns.
Blackbloc: The low rate of first-date sex for heterosexual women has more to do with the men in the equation than the women.
As was borne out in the survey of male/female college students responses to, “wanna fuck” propositions. When the people were asked and why they said no, the asnwer was, “I didn’t think they’d be good in bed. Women who thought the prospective partner was likely to be good in bed, the numbers were about the same for males as for females.