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?
Brandon: @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.
I was wondering how long unti the, “you aren’t a real man” implication would come out.
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.
I’ll wager that unless a topic comes up on which you disagree with feminists, you don’t identify women as being feminist. I’ll also wager, based on your comments about Ashely/women in general, that if a woman isn’t willing to agree with you, in a general way, she isn’t attractive (see above about not knowing if someone is, “attractive” enough to sleep with until I get to know her some), to you, and so enters the category of outlier.
That’s one of the definitional states of confirmation bias.
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 your biology is absurd (it’s a little better than your grasp of contracts, and not anything like the mess of your theories on economics).
Taking the furthest out from us, in the great apes, and then saying it ought to be used as the pattern to match, when there are much closer (temperamentally, and temporally) is asinine. You’d have been better to use some group like the Yanamomo, or the Harem of the Golden Porte, or the story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah, than to compare gorillas to people, as they don’t have any mapping which matches.
Gorillas live in one male many female groups. They have an open hierarchy. The females have an open hierarchy. They don’t have sex for pleasure/bonding (though there is evidence that it’s a side effect). They engage in mutual grooming for that. Gorillas do not have relational heirachies between males; in the presence of females.
Bonobos do have sex for pleasure, and as a bonding tool. They have relational hierarchies they use sex to establish maintain. The “alpha” status of both males and females is flexible, and interdependently relational (a male can be alpha to some women, and beta to others; he can clearly dominate some males and not others).
That makes, if one wants to make an appeal to nature, the bonobo the far better match.
But it doesn’t help your theory, so you try to argue that, for some reason, gorillas are better.
Which is nonsensical.
@Pecunium: Nice…a strawman right off the bat. I never said you weren’t a “real man”. Just that you make a distinction between the two which I have found to be the minority position straight men take when interacting with women they just met.
I don’t identify women as feminist until they say “I am a feminist”, “As a feminist…” or anything else where she is the one that is identifying herself as a feminist.
Ashley and I disagree about plenty of things. The fact that she has an opposing view is not the point. How she disagrees is more important. If she thinks other people are stupid for holding an opposing view or she is overly argumentative or naggy like she is trying to force her opinion on me. Then that is different.
The point you bring up about Bonobo’s just further validates my point.
1) A rich CEO might be “alpha” in the business world but “beta” in the dating/social world. I said this earlier in the comment thread while talking to Julie.
2) One man can’t dominate everyone. But lots of men can dominate men and women in their own social group.
In regards to your economics jab. Economic theory is just that, theory. People have lived in a variety of economic systems and there really isn’t one “correct” economic system. However, the way an economic system is designed shows what kind of values people have. I value self-reliance and individualism so capitalism reflects those values. I find socialists to be populists and are more susceptible to group think (i.e OWS).
@Brandon
So, what you’re saying is that there are men that love women that don’t fit certain rules of beauty, but they’re not the majority. And this disproves the idea that there is a standard of beauty how, exactly? There is a standard of beauty because, according to you (and most media) MOST MEN PREFER WOMEN WHO RESEMBLE A CERTAIN TYPE (STANDARD) OF GIRL. And therefore, women who do not resemble that standard (and may even be unable to resemble it, e.g. really tall or really short girls) have less confidence. It is not that hard to understand.
@Myoo: I am curious to know what you think that “type” is.
The list I provided above has white, black, short and tall women. They are all at the top of the list and I can’t really see a “type” in a diverse range of women. Unless “attractive” is now a type.
First, save your pity, doucherocket. Second, I don’t happen to think this, I’m working off your attitude. For you to be lecturing ANYONE on grey areas is rich beyond belief.
@Brandon
You said a “type” yourself, specifically Megan Fox. You then proceeded to say that most men would have sex with Megan Fox and that there is a minority of men that like women who are not similar to Megan Fox. If most men like women who are similar to Megan Fox, that makes her a standard of beauty. The fact that there is a minority that likes other body types is not relevant because they are a minority.
Women in media are portrayed as falling into a very small range of body types. Even the “ugly” ones tend to be just an actress that conforms to the standard of beauty, while having “unattractive” features like glasses.
Even in porn, women who deviate from the standard are specifically marketed. If a porn has fat women it mentions that specifically, if it has Asian women, or black women or transsexual women or old women, it mentions that as well. What you won’t see is many porns marketed as containing “Skinny Big-Tittied White Girls”, because that is viewed as the standard and all other women are considered deviations from that standard and marketed as such.
@Hellkell: But I can’t change how I feel. 😉
@Myoo:Megan Fox isn’t a “type” she is just one woman. I asked what you think the standard of beauty is. From your last paragraph, I can take a wild guess that “Skinny Big-Tittied White Girls” is what you see as the definitive “standard of beauty”.
But even still. The celebrities I mentioned earlier (Zoe Saldana, Mila Kunis, Hally Berry, etc…) don’t fall into that type yet are still considered some of the most attractive women on the planet. So even if it was a standard, it’s a pretty malleable and flexible one (which kind of defeats the purpose of having a “standard” to begin with).
I can’t believe I missed this gem:
You mean the way you are on the whole marriage thing?
Brandon: The thing I said wasn’t about cutting the pay of the CEO, it was about cutting the percentage of income spent on what is, loosely termed, “executive compensation”.
For a significant number of firms with highly paid senior executives the total can be more than ten percent of total revenues.
If we take a company with a 1 billion dollar revenue stream, that’s 100,000,000 dollars. Cutting that frees up a lot of money to spend other things. Cutting it in half makes 50,000,000 which can be spent on directly on things like salaries, or indirectly on things like benefits (say health care covereage; though I think that a poor stimulus to the economy in the present model).
Spending it on company infrastrcture (say a newer set of equipment) keeps the company more competitive, and employs people outside the company. It’s an economic multiplier, in ways that salaries to people who can’t spend all the money they make aren’t.
And that was the point of the exercise, to increase the money movig in the economy. Your answer (the banal trope of, “don’t buy Starbuck’s), doesn’t do that. You are discussing individual changes to how money is spent, which is not an economic gain. No increase in the amoung of money moving about has taken place, merely a slight change in where a small sum is spent.
Adding, even by so little as a 50 cent raise to the lowest tier of employees paid an hourly wage does that. My choosing to buy a Breville as opposed to a Jura doesn’t, because there is no extra money in the system as a result of my personal economizing.
The Brandon Show.
So Brandon, you’ve explained how you think men and women function. Including stating that men (in general) are shallow and judge women primarily based on waist to hip ratios and whether or not they have masculine features. Some how this is not a beauty standard.
But anyway, is this how things SHOULD be? Feminists believe that change is necessary and possible. Do you?
@Hellkell: I don’t think you are stupid for liking marriage. Obviously the idea of marriage means something to you. However, I see it as an unnecessary institution that has outlived it’s purpose. And out of the 1000+ “rights” that married people have over non-married people, IMO most of them are useless, “rights” I don’t really care about, “rights” that add more obligations than benefits or “rights” that don’t add any value to my life.
I advocate that people (men specifically) can have a life without marriage and still find love and enjoy life. The idea that you will die alone, never have regular sex, never be loved, etc.. without getting married is a crock.
Basically, I am trying to get men to ask themselves: Why am I getting married and what are the pro’s and cons of that decision?
Brandon: @Pecunium: Nice…a strawman right off the bat.
A reading comprehension fail. I said implication, because you used this phrasing: @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.
Now… you didn’t cite a study showing this. You didn’t say, “from talking to my male friends”, or, “the men I know,”you said “from being a man, and talking to men”. That’s an all inclusive structure. “Men” tend to not make that distinction.
Yet I did. The implication thenis that somehow I am not like other men.
I don’t identify women as feminist until they say “I am a feminist”, “As a feminist…” or anything else where she is the one that is identifying herself as a feminist.
As I said, confirmation bias in action. The odds of that coming up, prior to a discussion in which you are in disagreement on something, are slim.
At which point her not fitting the personality model you define as, “attractive” moves her into the realm of, “outlier”.
The point you bring up about Bonobo’s just further validates my point.
No. Because your point was about gorillas, not bonobos.
I value self-reliance and individualism so capitalism reflects those values.
Non-sequitor. And the jab I made was not about capitalism vs. socialism, but about the lack of comprehension you have about basic aspects of how the elements of things like money, and economies, behave.
It has nothing to do with the little stories you tell yourself about what capitalism means in terms of rugged individualism (and they are stories. In a “free market” the poor stay poor, and the rich become an oligarchic ruling class, unrestrained capitalism is antithetical to self-reliance and individualism, in the same way that Stalinism was; very different reasons, and very different mechanisms, but very similiar results).
The list I provided above has white, black, short and tall women. They are all at the top of the list and I can’t really see a “type” in a diverse range of women.
The existence of “type” is shown in that there isn’t a “niche” for slim white women aged 18-25. That is what one can expect to see in a mainstream porn film.
If you want a woman with curves, you get the “plump” titles. If you want one who isn’t white, you get the various, latina/ebony/black/asian titles. If you want one who is more than 30 they are “cougars”, or MILFs.
Each of those is designed to let the consumer know they are not getting the “standard type”. It’s marketing 101.
Oh, right, you can just apply your superior knowledge of contracts to the whole marriage thing.
Dude, you pretty much called us stupid before, so stop weaseling, if you can.
This is/b> a strawman:
I advocate that people (men specifically) can have a life without marriage and still find love and enjoy life. The idea that you will die alone, never have regular sex, never be loved, etc.. without getting married is a crock.
No one has here has said this. No here has implied this, but Brandon is, standing bravely against this non-existent consensus, telling us we are wrong.
But, while he pretends he can read our minds, and knows what we meant, though we didn’t say it, when people pointed out to him that the actual connontative structure of his attacks on marriage were also attacks on the people who chose to get married, we weren’t being faithful to what was said, and that’s unfair to poor Brandon.
Basically, I am trying to get men to ask themselves: Why am I getting married and what are the pro’s and cons of that decision?
Basically we have been telling you your analysis is shallow, and incorrect as to what those pros and cons are.
@Pencunium: You can’t just look at the revenue a company generates. It could have taken 90% of that billion dollars to generate that billion dollars. The more important number is yearly net profit. That takes into account the companies current expenditures.
I also find it funny that you think that money can be taken from the company and better spent the the people that run the company. The executive officers have far more experience as to what their company needs than some random outsider. In this case, you are that new employee that thinks he knows everything on day one. Seems pretty arrogant of you.
@Comrade: I think when it comes to judging physical attraction, I think we are all shallow.
Even if there was a “standard of beauty”, I find it hard to believe that it squarely falls on race or hair color. There are enough tall, short, blonde, brunette, white, black female celebrities that are in the spotlight to come to the conclusion that men don’t just go after white blondes.
As a hypothetical, lets assume that what determines female attractiveness is feminine facial features, facial symmetry and a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7. How are you going to change that? You can’t reform biology. You can’t make laws that state “all men will find X type of woman attractive”. Life just doesn’t work that way.
What makes men attracted to women isn’t some “social construct”, it is embedded within most men as a biological imperative. We need to reproduce to survive, so we are prodded by our own biological makeup to do that.
I mean, if it was a “social contruct” would that mean gay sex is also a “social construct”?
Yes, and if that were the case, the company would be out of business.
This is to laugh. You don’t work in the corporate world, do you?
@Pencunium: You can’t just look at the revenue a company generates. It could have taken 90% of that billion dollars to generate that billion dollars. The more important number is yearly net profit. That takes into account the companies current expenditures
Are you really this thick?
I mentioned the 10 percent of revenues, because that is what it is. Profits are measured after the payroll is paid. The executives’ compensation is 10 percent of gross revenues. It reduces profits. As a result it limits available capital, and reduces dividends.
I also find it funny that you think that money can be taken from the company and better spent the the people that run the company.
I find it typical that you think a group of people who have a vested interest might serve that private interest first, rather than serving larger interests.
The companies with the highest percentage of revenue going to executive compensation, are those companies which have the executive compensation set by the board of directors, of which several of the highly paid directors are voting members.
Oddly, when reformers try to make that a violation of fiduciary duty, those people lobby like hell to say it’s not.
Foxes, henhouses.
Reading comprehension FAIL
Yes, that explains why “Last year, over 200,000 consultants sold over $100 billion of advice.”
Business comprehension FAIL
Please go back to talking about Brandon. It seems to be the only thing you have any knowedge about.
@Pecunium: Clearly you didn’t read “men tend not to make that distinction”
Tend:
Regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.
How does that even remotely saying “you aren’t a real man”. Also, if I was going to say something like that…I would just come out and say it. I would say “Pecunium isn’t a real man!”. But I don’t think that. I don’t even like the label “real man”, so I don’t use it to describe men.
Actually, most women make the claim that they are feminists within the first 5-10 minutes of having a conversation. And even still, I might prod her to identify or not identify as a feminist. If she says anything even remotely close to advocating a feminist position, I say “So you are a feminist.”. Either way, I purposely screen for feminist women.
It’s ok Pecunium, I think you are just as ill-informed on money and economics as you think I am.
The marriage comment you quoted was “reasons why I think marriage is unnecessary” not “this is what the consensus is”. I never said they were your positions…or anyone else’s. They are my reasons for being anti-marriage.
Also, my reasons for being anti-marriage doesn’t make you wrong. It means pro-marriage people see more value in marriage than I do.
In Brandon’s world, all the men are too busy dumbly lining up to fuck Megan Fox to ask themselves this question, apparently. Example #9854727 of how feminists are definitely not the man-hating people around here. :p
HAAHAHAHAAA god I love this guy. So funny! 😀
(But I am slightly disturbed that Ashley has apparently never said anything “even remotely close to advocating a feminist position” because that suggests that she is not interested in access to birth control, equal pay, being allowed to leave the kitchen or reducing rape? Creepy…)
@Hellkell: umm…Hasbro has a profit margin of 9% and they have been in business for a long time. Mattel has a little over 11% profit margin. In fact the whole industry of consumer toys and games has an aggregated profit margin less than 10%.
@cynickal: Ya, and I bet those consultants are industry or field specific. Also the company bought those services, the company didn’t have the consultant forced on them.
And now we’re going on and on about economics with Brandon?
Christ, just when you think he’s done, he finds something new to bring the attention back to him.
And Bagelsan comes in swinging in the insults.
@Bagelsan: Ashley doesn’t label herself one, but she does agree with a few tenets of feminism (as do I).
“Ashley doesn’t label herself one, but she does agree with a few tenets of feminism (as do I).”
Like?