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?
OK, it’s more a defense of laziness, but disguising it as “having better things to do” which is shorthand for “I’m friggin’ lazy.” Which also totally fits your M.O., as you are a lazy, sloppy, solipsistic thinker with a narrow worldview.
@HellKell: Strike 2!
Really? I pretty much nailed you.
What happens after strike three?
@HellKell: Do I really have to tell you the point of that article? So sad!
You think I should shut up? Nah, I’m clearly getting to you, I think I’ll keep it up.
(makes popcorn)
Brandon shoots, hits a tree instead of Hellkell. Keeps shooting the poor harmless tree while yelling “I win!”.
If you look up “born on third, thinks he hit a triple,” Brandon’s picture is right there.
@HellKell: I don’t really care. You only wish you were getting to me. In fact, I find this back and forth mildly amusing.
Pretty much, but reality can’t penetrate Brandon’s narcissist field.
Also, am I the only one who has The Bloodhound Gang playing in their head?
Brandon:
That explains — and this is your own example — the enormous diversity within non-niche porn, right?
Actually, Brandon probably thinks porn is enormously diverse, because he probably underestimates the range of humanity. He’s Branbdon, after all, so the women he observes are clearly all there is. Them and Thai women.
I’m just surprised he of all people needs the idea of marked versus unmarked explained to him.
@Hershele: I am having trouble finding “non-niche” porn. Can you help me point it out?
http://www.youporn.com/categories
Thanks, Cynical, now I have that song stuck in my head.
I’m insulted that you think I would want to date Megan Fox. Have you heard her views about Wonder Woman? The lady’s an idiot.
@Spearhafoc: And I also pointed out there are exceptions. I don’t think Paris Hilton is attractive (physically or personality wise) but she is at the top of the list because a lot of men would date her or would like to have sex with her. So while you personally might not find Megan Fox attractive there are a shit load of men that do.
Spearhafoc, you know these are The Statistics According To Brandon, so take them with a grain (or more) of salt.
If he wants to bone Megan Fox, ALL men want to.
“If he wants to bone Megan Fox, ALL men want to.”
Well, shit, I must be an a mutant…that somehow doesn’t disprove his theory. 😀
I’m pretty sure Megan Fox is married.
Mind you, I’m fairly sure even if she were single, she’d run screaming in the opposite direction if Brandon ever asked her out. I know nothing about the woman beyond her marital status, but I’m willing to take a chance on her reaction to our darling Brandon. Please note that I have no idea what Brandon looks like. I just suspect Ms. Fox would be as repelled by his personality as we are.
I don’t know. I’ve read a few interviews. She’s pretty vile, and like attracts like.
“I don’t know. I’ve read a few interviews. She’s pretty vile, and like attracts like.”
Wait, no points for trashing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen? 😀 Because that’s what she did one time and that’s why she was replaced.
Brandon: @Quakers: It’s not so much a “standard of beauty” as it is men prioritizing. If I took a picture of megan fox and asked 100 men if she is attractive, I am positive that most men would say yes, while some would be neutral and a small minority will find her unattractive.
Depends on what you mean when you say attractive. Ask me if she’s pretty to look at, I might say yes. Ask me if I wanted to have sex with her I’d say I don’t know.
I’d have to get to know her first.
I tend to notice that lots of feminists fall into the “outlier” category.
According to whom? I call confirmation bias.
To me, alpha men are men that can have more sex with more women than the average guy and doesn’t kiss her ass in the process.
Strange definition. “Kiss her ass” is purely subjective.
I know I fit the first half of your definition. I suspect that (being something of a feminist) I can never fit your definition of the second half.
@Cassandra: The concept of “alpha” exists even outside of humans.
No argument. Now prove that it’s relevant inside of humans.
Also, outside of humans, where there are, “alpha” males, they are still dealing with some “alpha” females. One of the interesting things about horses is that the stallions who live with a “harem” are dominant as all fuck toward other stallions, but deferential to the females in the harem.
It’s only the ones who only get to see mares who are in heat who are absolute pains in the ass. One of the reasons they aren’t turned out with mares is the fear the mares will cripple/kill them because they are so unclear on the pecking order.
@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.
So are planaria. Picking and choosing isn’t useful. If you want to claim biology as dispostive, you have to support it.
Hershele Ostropoler: @Pecunium: I was going by a very quick read of Wikipedia, and drastically oversimplifying. In any case, it’s under 18.
Ok, but there’s a big difference between “under 18” and stating that it’s 12.
This phenomena is pretty much exclusively because of human management techniques in domestic herds. Humans want complete control over which mares a stallion breeds, and the way that’s being done is by completely isolating stallions from the mares. As a result, they don’t really understand all the social “rules” they need to follow when covering a mare, and the mares smack them down as a result.
In short, when stallions spend their lives separate from mares, they don’t know how to act when they ARE around them, and the mares get pissed off.
You know, something about this social dynamic seems eerily familiar…. I just can’t quite put my finger on it….
Shora: Yes, that was implicit in the, ” one of the reasons they aren’t turned out”.
I’ve met stallions who were kept in herds with females… they were perfectly fine animals. They would be a bit more attentive of new people near, “their” mares, but nothing like the menace to life and limb a money horse “kept at stud” who ever spent time near either “phantom”, or estrus mares was.
One of the sad this is how many of the studs aren’t allowed near any other horse, because they have no idea how to interact with them at all. If they tried to live cover a mare in heat they would hurt her.
I’d love to see that sort of isolation outlawed. It’s not fair to the poor stallions.
@Hellkell: I actually feel sorry for you. You see things in such black and white terms. Life has grey areas. It’s not about ALL men or NO men. It’s about MOST men find Megan Fox sexually, physically attractive.
If Megan Fox walked into a bar full of heterosexual guys and said “Line up if you want to sleep with me”. I would bet money MOST of those men would “line up” without even her saying anything else.
@Pecunium: If you want to have a distinction between physically attractive and “i would sleep with her”, you are more than welcome. From my experience 1) being a man and 2) talking to men…men tend not to make that distinction.
At least for me, the distinction doesn’t happen until the “relationship” starts. Meeting, flirting, having sex. I can do all that without knowing that much about her. If I think she will be a good girlfriend, then I will start taking her personality into account and giving it much more weight. But just to hang out and have fun doesn’t require intimate knowledge of another person.
Confirmation bias? Possibly. But how I interact with female feminists is vastly different than how I interact with non-feminist women. From my own personal experience, I find most female feminists also fall into “outlier” groups (hipsters, geek, etc…). So not only are they in a marginalized social group, they are in a marginalized group within that group.
Planaria isn’t even in the same Phylum as humans. Nowhere close. The reason I choose “primate’ was because I thought “animalia” was to broad and “homo” was to narrow a scope. The “primate” order was mid way between the two. But if you really want to get closer we can use the subfamily “Homininae” which includes modern humans, chimps and gorillas.
The point I was making is that if we evolved from members in the Homininae family and we can see we got some of there physical traits (like opposable thumbs, similar facial structure, etc..) and we recognize the concept of “alpha males” outside of our species. Yet as soon as we talk about humans…the notion of “alpha males” is somehow silly and absurd.
We can also see practical examples of “alpha males” in our own species:
1) Rock stars batting away attractive women
2) Men emulating alpha males in sports, politics, business, etc…
3) Stronger men (physically fit) tend to attract more women than weaker males (overweight)
4) Women tend to go for status (i,e an engineer is more attractive than a garbage man).