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?
@random: I see this as you telling me how something works. My question is “why should I give one rats ass about celebrity gossip?”. What benefit does it serve to listen, document and analyze all the crap they yammer on about.
Also, yeah, that’s pretty much right on, juliejezebel. There’s a strong contingent of activists within anthropology. The American Anthropological Association even addresses advocacy in its code of ethics. Only really to say that it’s an individual choice, but still. The first steps to fixing problems in our own culture is understanding where they came from and how other societies have dealt with similar issues.
You don’t have to, Brandon. I don’t. I also don’t have tv (because I’m cheap, not because I don’t see value in it). I’m hopelessly out of the loop with certain kinds of pop culture. I’m just saying that dismissing all of pop culture as worthless is elitist bullshit, and that people have perfectly good reasons for being interested in even the less redeeming stuff that have nothing to do with them being sheeple.
Brandon: Also, there are levels of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Obviously you will never be self-sufficient or reliant when it comes to infrastructure or things like police and fire departments. But one can apply self-reliance to other things…like not becoming overly debt ridden. And self-reliance also leads to more autonomy since you are in a position of strength and not weakness. People that are more self-reliant than the average citizen is in a better position to not be coerced
I am, in a way, wasting my time, but this is delusional.
People who are “self-reliant” in the way you think you are self-reliant, are much easier to manipulate. Pitch something, with some effectively propagandistic rhetoric, as being all about self-reliance and sufficiency, and the folks who are all for those two things will lap it up.
Look at your blather about strength and weakness. Being part of a greater whole can make one a lot stronger (think about being one Bradley, vs. a Squadron). Good luck getting healthcare without pooling your assets with someone else.
Go ahead and buy a house without a mortgage (or a car without a loan). It’s impossible to live in society, without being dependent on it, in lots of ways you dismiss as being, “weak”.
Yet you do it, and your entire life is dependent on people whom you don’t know (suck as my fiancée’s other fiancé, who is one of the movers and shakers in both internet maintenance and the ways in which aspect of IT are built, but hey, you are independet, and self-reliant. I am sure you can do all that stuff yourself).
Then again, you think strawmen (@Julie: Britney Spears is important?! HAHAHAHAHAHA.) are brilliant retorts, and ignore the substance of other people’s arguments (care to talk about revenur vs. profit some more, or actually try to defend your inane ideas about gold as a basis for the US economy?… so far the evidence is no), so it’s not as if you are self-assured enough to actually defend the positions you stake out; even though you will later pretend that you were never really challenged on them.
I used to think Brandon was just kind of… not dumb, exactly, but really lacking in critical thinking skills. Then I decided he was willfully obtuse and kind of an asshole. Then there was that entire exchange around how one would document getting permission from a sex partner to record them and I decided that I was right the first time: lacking critical thinking skills.
Now I’m reassessing my original opinion.
@Nobinayamu – I’m voting for both.
@random: I don’t dismiss all of pop culture. I just see large chunks of it serve no purpose other to get people to read, listen or watch it. It’s not important, it’s not informative. To use George Orwell’s newspeak…a lot of it is prolefeed.
I don’t have a TV cause most of what is on TV sucks.
I don’t listen to the radio because they play the same crappy mediocre songs over and over.
I don’t pay any attention to what celebrities are doing or wearing because it is useless information that provides little benefits to me.
Brandon, if you think that the only things that comprise “pop culture” are television, radio, and celebrity gossip…
Why am I bothering? I’m talking to someone whose break down of modern culture was made up of music store categories: “rap culture” “hipster culture” and so forth.
You can’t even define pop culture. You think that cloning and ipods are separate from it.
You still haven’t explained the difference between pop and high culture.
@Pecunium: Explaining this to you is like trying to get a dog to speak english.
WE ARE ALL RELIANT ON EACH OTHER TO A CERTAIN EXTENT.
That will NEVER change. You are painting an individualist as some random dude that is living out in the wilderness like the unibomber.
I see individualists as people that value having their shit in order. Principles like staying debt free, paying of a mortgage early, Making sure you take your own goals into account and not just dismiss them in favor of “what society wants” Basically take into account your own value before you value everyone else.
I mean lots of feminists complain about that all women do is give and give and give and give and give…well maybe you should take your own wants and needs and place them in front of others. You know…like say no to people. Don’t do things that contradict what you want. etc…
There are certain parts of life where being in a group is better and other times it’s not. The military is a good example of “strength in numbers” while following the group in the “dot com bubble” probably lost you a lot of money.
If the group has the same goals as you then it make sense to join it. But one should not lose their ability to critically think and not succumb to group-think.
Brandon makes me think of Vorbis from Small Gods with a mind that is entirely closed upon itself.
Nobinayamu, I think you’re right. Homonyms are too advanced. Brandon’s changed which definition he’s using so many times that I’m not even sure what we’re arguing anymore.
random:
Low culture = the prolefeed they mass media feeds stupid people (See Maury and Jerry Springer)
High Culture = “culture” that is approved of by the elites of a society.
Brandon: So… what meta-groups do you think you belong to? Do you think any of them exist independently of your choice (i.e. are there groups to which you belong by mere virtue of being who you are, where you are)?
How do you square that (assuming you admit any such groups exist), with your lack of broader social empathy than, “dudes I know and non-feminist chicks I think are hot,”?.
How does this reconcile to your belief that success is the result of individuals being free to do their own thing?
How is it you think identification with a larger social group denies individual freedom.
Why are there holes in donuts?
Who are the elites? Do they never consume pop culture? Is there nothing in the middle?
Brandon: Where to Shakespeare, Marlowe, Sidney, Poe, Whitman, Conan Doyle, Bulwyr-Litton, Dickenson, Swinburne, Dickens, Moliere, Walter Scott, fit in the definitions of high/low culture.
Where did they fit in their times?
What, if anything caused the change?
How do you personally feel about them?
Was Antigone, or Creon the hero of that play?
Is it a “classic”
Is it high, or low?
Was it high, or low?
@pecunium: Wow…that was boring to read.
Identification with a larger social group can limit individual freedom when an individuals mind outgrows the group as a whole. When that group can no longer answer the questions the individual has. There are a few options 1) The group shames you from expanding your mind (which is reason enough to leave it) or 2) The individual tries to leave the group with the group trying to keep the individual in as to not “stir the pot”
Take feminism as an example. I personally agree with pretty much every economic and legal stance most feminists take. Why don’t I call myself a feminist? Because doing so would mean I might be forced to swallow feminist dogma in whole. I find that idea limiting. It would be like trying to stuff me into a Stor-All box and then asking if I was “comfortable”. It’s restricting.
@Pecunium: I don’t really spend time playing the role of taxonomist and putting art into it’s “proper” high/low culture categories.
Yes you do. You’ve already made those pronouncements before. You just don’t put any thought into it before you do.
Again, if you think Shakespeare is high art, you should probably read them annotated. It’s kind of hilarious and really not.
Oh, and that’s no slam on the bard. I’d honestly say he earned the title. He just didn’t do it making high art.
Brandon: @Pecunium: I don’t really spend time playing the role of taxonomist and putting art into it’s “proper” high/low culture categories.
So all that stuff you said about high/low was just you making shit up.
Typical.
Take feminism as an example. I personally agree with pretty much every economic and legal stance most feminists take. Why don’t I call myself a feminist? Because doing so would mean I might be forced to swallow feminist dogma in whole.
So you lack the ability to be an individual. You can’t be a “feminist” who disagrees with other feminists.
When it comes to actually being an individual (as opposed to bleating about the virtues of individualism), you are all talk, and no walk.
Which is consistent with your views on things like “hotness” and how men see attractiveness. None of the guys whom you know/talk to don’t think women need to be known as people to be attractive, ergo, “men tend to think that way”.
We have “instincts” that make us like this, or that.
We are evoluntionarily driven to act like gorillas.
In short, when it comes to things that Brandon believes, it’s inevitable. But when he wants, he can be brave, and “individual” because he won’t be part of a group, lest that group have tenets he disagrees with; because he goes his own way.
Incoherent, and all over the map, which is, for Brandon, typical.
To expand: I don’t put “art” into that sort of category either. But I could make taxonomies if I wanted to. They would be internally consistent, and defensible.
They would also be as artificial as the ones you made, and then denied making (which was no surprise. You are, in your way, as predictable as NWO, or MRAL. Like Meller you seem to have some unplumbed depth in terms of subject matter, but the pattern [make sweeping claims, be refuted, ignore vast swathes of people’s replies, make strawmen, complain about being subjected to analysis; posture about how people have failed to make telling points, assume an above it all air, and redefine things as if you never said what you said in the first place… it’s as predictable as a the form of a Shakespearian comedy, or a Victorian melodrama, but I digress [which is also predictable]).
What I don’t think can be done is to make any factual definition of “high/low/ culture, because those are social constructs. Opera is “highbrow” now, but it was in the same category as sitcoms in it’s day (which is why “Live at the Met” ran for so many years.
I (and lots of other people here) actually look at our culture, and at where it came from.
You look at what you like, and pretend that’s a timeless norm.
@Pecunium: What the fuck are you even talking about? When the hell did I talk about high vs low culture? I think random asked me to define it. So I gave the standard definition of high and low culture.
Typical? What are you my ex-girlfriend? Man, you are snooty.
I just can’t call myself a feminist because 1) I don’t want to be pressured into accepting bullshit dogma and 2) Feminists work against mens interests. Kind of shooting yourself in the foot.
All talk and no walk? Do you have examples or are you just going to make an accusation without actually providing evidence?
Umm..women are people. And most of my male friends think that way too. Regardless of attractiveness.
We are evolutionary driven to survive and procreate.
Why would I be a part of a group I don’t believe in it’s principles?
Ya…I am not a MGTOW
*looks at the steel ball that is Brandon’s mind and marvels*
Brandon:@Pecunium: What the fuck are you even talking about? When the hell did I talk about high vs low culture?
random:
Low culture = the prolefeed they mass media feeds stupid people (See Maury and Jerry Springer)
High Culture = “culture” that is approved of by the elites of a society.
This… I think random asked me to define it. So I gave the standard definition of high and low culture is more of the back-pedalling you do so often.
You didn’t give a “standard” definition. You gave what you think the definition is. A “standard” definition is one that’s in dictionaries. When someone want’s to cite a standard definition, that’s what they do, they quote a dictionary.
You didn’t do that, you used an Orwellian term (which you had earlier introduced to the debate, in the context of trying to define pop-culture) and then used examples you think meet that definition you created.
So yeah, you did define high and low culture, to your, peronal, (if typically vague) standards.
You are all talk/no walk about individualism because you think that to be, by way of example, a feminist means you have to agree with everything every feminist everywhere says, thinks or does.
So, to prove how individual you are, you say you “agree with lots of feminism”, but aren’t a feminsist because of all the stuff, “they accept as dogma”, that you don’t like.
An honest to goodness individualist would say, “I’m a feminist because these important principles I agree with”, and then explain why you don’t agree with the other things.
But you, you don’t have the gumption to do that. Instead you hide behind a sort of cut-rate nihilism where you pretend to not agree with anything. At the same time you have a massive identification with the basic tropes of the parent culture you live in.
Which is a typical, late-20th, early-21st american norm, as mocked in Monty Python’s, “Life of Brian”
You are all individuals
We are all individuals
You are in the crowd, repeating what an individual you are, just like everyone around you.