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?
The 0.7 waist to hip ratio that’s been the standard measure of attractiveness and fertility for all time, all over the world, forever? Hush your mouth! The Venus figurines were like niche porn.
One does have to wonder about the work done in advertising and media entertainment if, you know, what people like is what they like and it’s what they’ve always liked, forever and ever.
@Brandon – they fit modern standards of beauty, and that’s what guys have been taught to like. We know full well that attraction is something that develops as you grow older. One way this happens is that you tend to prefer people who look like the people in your family. So if you grew up surrounded by tall, skinny blondes, that’s what you prefer. Same with a family of short, dark-hair and -skinned people, or whatever other looks type. If you are adopted, you’ll prefer the looks of the family you grew up with, not the family that provided you with genes.
You also pick up on what’s acceptable within your culture. Berry and Kunis would not have been considered attractive all that long ago. When Shakespeare talks about the ugly dark ladies, he’s talking about brunettes. Women of color like Berry were emphatically not attractive in his time and place. Kunis’s hair and skin would be far too brown. Standards of beauty most definitely change, and rather quickly, too. See, for instance, the difference between flappers and Gibson girls or 1950s pinups.
I am kinda wondering how Brandon makes this 15 minute assessment. Does he think, “Ha, she is overweight! Must be feminist.” Or does he use “Do you think the wage gap is just because women take less demanding jobs?” as an opener?
@Hellkell: My first comment was on it was
“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.”
So unless they come out and say “i am a feminist” , I label them as non-feminist until they prove otherwise.
My second comment was:
“Actually, most women make the claim that they are feminists within the first 5-10 minutes of having a conversation”
It has been MY EXPERIENCE when talking to women they typically tell me if they are a feminist or not pretty quickly in the conversation. But i probably subconsciously direct the conversation so I can “smoke ’em out”.
However, if they don’t, I have to be a little more active in getting her to say she is or isn’t a feminist…
My third comment:
“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.”
Do you see that? If she doesn’t bring up a “feminist position” guess who does? Me! Either way, I am actively screening girls into “feminist” and “non-feminist” categories. And I can typically do it in a time-effective manner…say 5-10 minutes.
Men are after Hale Berry and such because they want to get status and their gold digging whores. We all know men just don’t actually like sex (how could they? where women can have an infinite number of orgasms in one night, they’re stuck with a pathetic one, maybe two sometimes), their only interest in ‘alpha’ women like that is based on their shallow interest in attaining a high status and wealthy lifestyle by proxy.
Brandon, you couldn’t subconsciously smoke your way out of a wet bag, so I’m totes curious as to your methodology.
I sort of want to do a role play with Brandon, just to see how the conversation goes.
@Brandon: Is there some reason that you cannot grasp the idea that individual “preferences” can in fact connect to “socio-cultural standards of beauty” that do in fact change over time and across cultures?????????????????????????
@Rutee: No, yes, not sure, we our monogamous and I haven’t cheated on her, not even remotely close.
@random6: Ah yes, the “men are subtly controlled by society to be attracted to skinny blonde women”. I can see your point about men being attracted to the females that are around him to a certain extent (familiarity). But the idea that men are just brainwashed into what women they should find attractive.
I also find in interesting that you brought up fashion. Do you think you are maybe projecting “just an itsy tiny bit” when you think that fashion has any role in what determines what is attractive in a woman.
As you may already know, the fashion industry doesn’t cater to men…it caters to women. So the idea of what a woman is wearing somehow determines her physical attractiveness is laughable. Like a straight man would ever say “I don’t want to sleep with her…she is wearing an ugly dress”. OMG….the lolz!
And even if the “standard of beauty” was “white girls with big tits”. How does that explain the popularity of Halle Berry or Mila or Rihanna (or any other actress/singer that ISNT white with blond hair)? It seems that even the standard doesn’t apply to them.
@Brandon: gay sex is also a “social construct”?
The concept of “gay” is a social construct (i.e. before Freud, that concept of a gay self did not exist–would you like a bibliography of scholarship on Elizabethan structures of masculinity and male relationships and oh BACKDOOR sex and a bunch of other stuff that show the different social constructions of human sexuality?)
And the preference for younger thinner fairer skinned blonder partners as the “gold” standard also exists in the gay community–i.e. surprisingly and depressingly similar to the straight community.
I can also provide a bibliography of scholarship and readings on that issue as well.
You really are thick as a whale sandwich, aren’t you?
@hellkell: My methodology? Bring up topics that feminists care about.
@Julie: Don’t tempt me. 😉
@ithiliana: So each country has it’s own culture which then leads to it’s own “standard of beauty” which means that globally there are roughly 200-205 “standards of beauty”. 200+ different “standards”? That doesn’t sound like a standard to me.
@Brandon:
No. There can be different cultures in a country (like the US), but there is a distinction between MAINSTREAM or DOMINANT cultures and marginalized cultures.
And there can be overlap between cultures that are closely related.
And the whole point is that yes, there are DIFFERENT standards of what is the IDEAL beauty — but the fact that those standards differ across time and cultures PROVES they are soci-cultural in origin, NOT genetically mandated.
Really, Brandon. So you bring up equal pay (which you are for) and she’s like, “yep.” then you know she’s a feminist? I’d love to see you sketch that out. I’m serious. Totally not mocking or kidding.
Why precisely are you screening them?
ltered Perceptions? A Quantitative Test of whether the American Beauty Standard is Changing to Reflect Increased National Diversity.”.
Authors:
Reilly, Wilfred1 [email protected]
Battle, Erica1 [email protected]
Source:
Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association; 2009 Annual Meeting, p1, 25p
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
Throughout most of history, scholars have argued that the American beauty standard privileges whiteness; Caucasians are seen as more attractive than equivalently situated members of minority groups (Miller 1969). Similarly, slender and light-haired individuals are seen as more attractive than individuals with ethnic or sub-cultural physical traits. However, many authors now contend that this standard is changing; increased national diversity is resulting in a fluid and tolerant U.S. beauty standard (Sekayi 2003). To test these divergent theories, we conduct a large-N quantitative study of respondent reactions to 1,550 images posted on a popular âbeauty rankingâ website. We conclude that â” although age and race tolerance have increased by most measures â” the American beauty standard remains largely unchanged. Slenderness, blond status, and non-Black status remain significant predictors of perceived attractiveness. In contrast, overweight, brunette status, and most minority statuses negatively predict perceived attractiveness. It is notable that several minority groups, such as East Asians, are now seen as being typically more attractive than whites. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Conference Papers — Midwestern Political Science Association is the property of Midwestern Political Science Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Author Affiliations:
1Southern Illinois University
Accession Number:
45301450
Database:
Academic Search Complete
@hellkell: I’m betting that the feminists who screen for sexist assholes correctly identify Brandon within 3-5 minutes, and race for the horizon!
@Julie: I tend to stay away from the cliched issues (wage gap and so on). I might ask a question on shared parenting or paternity fraud,
And how do feminists respond? I’m truly curious. And again, why?
@Julie: The question that I bring up is kind of irrelevant. I just use it as a springboard to ask the question “so you are/aren’t a feminist”.
And I ask because I consider myself a staunch feminist, but also a humanist with a very deep well of compassion for kids (as well as parents). I think that in every possible case, custody should be shared and parents should act like grownups and not be assholes to each other (thus setting a terribly traumatic example for kids). And I wish that parents wouldn’t be abusive to each other or to their families though this does indeed happen. I think lawyers shouldn’t focus on “winning” and instead focus on the best interest of the children’s mental, physical and emotional health.
I also don’t think women should lie about paternity any more than men should lie about …whatever it is men lie about. If a woman tricks a man into child support, I think that’s abominable.
I think if a man tricks a woman into getting pregnant, that’s also abominable.
Yes, but if you aren’t dating them, why does it matter? Just because you don’t like hanging out with them? I mean, that’s a fair reason. I do the same thing with LGBT issues to determine if I’m going to get close to someone. If they are against LGBT rights, I’ll keep them more at arm’s length. But since you and Ashley have a great many things on the “pro” feminist side, I’m not sure why you are screening women.
@ithilliana: I’m sure they do. “POOF!”
@Brandon: What else do you bring up? And why, yet again, do you screen for feminists? Do you screen for anything else?
“I just use it as a springboard to ask the question “so you are/aren’t a feminist”.”
Good to know you alert women to your douchebag status within the first 10 minutes.If only all men were so kind as to fly such a big red flag upon first contact.
@hellkell: well I’d bet real money that all OLD and FAT and PHYSICALLY DISABLED women are summarily pre-screened and erased from the viewscreen that is the Brandon view of the world. THat’s true of the vast majority of men in his age group/maturity group.
@Julie: I should point out that I don’t really do this right now since I am with Ashley. But it is what I do when I am single.
@hellkell: I screen for a lot of things: gold diggers, compassion, women that like similar interests, women that have a negative opinion of men in general, etc…
@ithiliana: I am not really attracted to overweight women, so I probably wouldn’t approach them. I do like older women just fine. I also don’t really come across to may physically disabled women.