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?
@Julie: For one, chimps, bonobos and gorillas all fall under the “primate” order. Chimps and bonobos are closer to us than gorillas but gorillas are still in our family tree.
There are other male gorillas in one tribe. Maybe stronger males is what draws in the females as opposed to females going after weaker males.
Brandon, for the love of little green apples, I don’t care what dumb shit you say anymore, but please learn to use a goddamn apostrophe properly.
@HellKell: Don’t read it then.
Brandon:
It is indeed. Because there is a beauty standard — a look that “everyone knows” is beautiful — and people who find different, non-standard looks beautiful have to seek out niche porn when they’re interested in porn.
So why does that not seem to be what you’re arguing?
How about don’t post here?
@Julie: For one, chimps, bonobos and gorillas all fall under the “primate” order. Chimps and bonobos are closer to us than gorillas but gorillas are still in our family tree.
Yes, but our sexuality in no way resemembles the rigidly structured model presented by gorillas so continuing to reference it as some dubious explanation for the, even more dubious, concept of the “alpha male” is pointless.
Brandon’s in favor of the fallacy of nature for everything from economics to sexuality. And by god, if he says it, he must be right.
So basically you’re just speculating on what you think might appeal to female gorillas, and then applying the results of that speculation to women? That’s some pretty crappy science, Brandon.
Hahahahahahahaha! Science!
To be fair, PUA theories are really more like a religion.
@Julie: For one, chimps, bonobos and gorillas all fall under the “primate” order. Chimps and bonobos are closer to us than gorillas but gorillas are still in our family tree.
There are other male gorillas in one tribe. Maybe stronger males is what draws in the females as opposed to females going after weaker males.
So, what’s the argument here? That primates we are less closely related to should be considered more reflective of our behavior than those that are closer to us genetically? For what reason?
Well, according to Science…
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2410#comic
>>Yes, but if you believe in the idea of evolution (instead of creationism) then those traits can be passed on to us.
Traits that have a genetic basis can be passed on to us, yes.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of the pseudo-scientists who talk about Evo Psychology have a hard time demonstrating that whatever trait they think is natural is actually genetically based, but that doesn’t stop them from extrapolating that traits that aren’t even universal in the modern world and are known to have come into existence in the last 200 years at best are actually related to how our Neolithic ancestors lived their lives,
@Hershele: The point was that straight men go after a variety of women, Not just what the media tells us.
There is no “look that everyone knows is beautiful”. There are men that think Paris Hilton is ugly (me being one of them) There is a hierarchy though. Women like Megan Fox, Blake Lively, Zoe Saldana, Halle Berry, Sofia Vergara, Mila Kunis, etc… are going to be at the top of that hierarchy. Most men would 1) love to date one of them and 2) love have sex with them. At lower levels you get niche’s. Types of women that only certain men find attractive.
That doesn’t automatically make something a “standard”. It’s not like men are walking around with some “beauty standards” guide. Men tend to be attracted physically to women that have a proportionate waist-to-hip ratio and a symmetrical face with feminine features (no man jaws, thick nose bridges, etc…)
So… what exactly does the niche own?
Women love it when you pick the bugs out of their fur and eat them.
And by “women” I mean “lady gorillas.”
Same thing, amirite fellas?
@Hellkell: http://bit.ly/nbDyGr
That’s absolutely right, David
Brandon, you would be defending stupidity. Hell, you do it all the time.
@HellKell: Swing and a miss!
“That doesn’t automatically make something a ‘standard’. It’s not like men are walking around with some “beauty standards” guide. Men tend to be attracted physically to women that have a proportionate waist-to-hip ratio and a symmetrical face with feminine features (no man jaws, thick nose bridges, etc…)”
Um, Brandon? All those attributes you listed (“no man jaws, thick nose bridges”, etc.)? That’s a beauty standard.
If I had more time, I would write a comment fic about Brandon being dragged off into the jungle by a “dominate” lady gorilla…….but time to go HOME. And pet my darling kitties and doggies and enjoy my outlier status which means there’s no male schmuck at home demanding a sammich.
“A silverback lives in a troop of 5 up to 30 females, with which he mates all year long. There is little competition for females, since a large silverback is scary and can easily protect its group from challengers.” — from here (scroll WAY DOWN)
Yeah, can’t say that’s what’s happening even among most PUAs (don’t they just wanna pump and dump, as opposed to protecting their females?)
Going by gorillas, humans should actually just go back to having harems. 😛
Is that what you’ll call your autobiography, Brandon?
@Molly: I see it more as preferences. The more masculine features a woman has, the less likely she is going to be attractive to the majority of men. A beauty standard you mentioned would imply that women with man jaws aren’t attractive. This is untrue. There are lots of women that have man jaws (Salma Hayek). One or two masculine features isn’t going to make a woman unattractive. It is the ratio between male/female features. Salma Hayek has tons of feminine features, so it doesn’t really matter if she has one masculine feature.