Some random dude on the internet has thoughts about sex and civilization so we have to listen to him.
In a weird manifesto titled “the Fuck Rate is about to Implode,” someone calling himself “bright eyes” explains that the health of our civilization depends on whether or not average guys can score themselves some hottt pussy.
Our civilization is held together by a pact: mid men get pussy, everyone else gets core infrastructure.
This pact harnesses the single greatest source of psychic energy known to man: men’s desire to secure the partnership, youthful attention, and children of attractive women.
And the hotter the women are, the more civilization we get!
This pact has an intensive margin; the sweeter the deal you make for the mid men, the more civilization you can squeeze out of them. It’s pretty easy to e.g. do 80 hour weeks as a trucker if you have a thin, bubbly, hygienic, erstwhile virgin wife at home who’s given you three blonde kids and is anxious about not giving you good enough blowjobs
But if your wife is possibly a little bit plump, or likes to have sex that’s good for her too, ALL BETS ARE OFF. “Mid men” can’t be expected to build much civilization if their wives are
30lbs overweight, angry, a slob, run through, barren, and expect[ing] you to “centre female pleasure” during sex… .
It turns out that the only way to nudge typical women into losing weight, cleaning up, and centering their men’s pleasure during sex is to make them feel guilty.
[Y]ou’re going to need to build a social apparatus — religion, behavioral mores, unnatural standards — to shame women into it. And that shaming will inevitably make real, normal women unhappy. But in exchange you get more civilization.
Now, alas, the whole system is driven by shaming “mid men” like the aforementioned truckers into accepting less-than-perfect wives in exchange for 80-hour stretches on the road. Only shame can convince the trucker to settle for “the ugly wife” while he “work[s] as hard as he would if he had the hot wife … .” And shaming men is now apparently starting to backfire.
The long-run, inescapable equilibrium is one wherein truckers with ugly wives will not work as hard, and truckers with no wives may not work at all.
And somehow the incel is the symbol of all this, especially now that the average incel has morphed from an ugly loser into a “well-educated 8/10 [man] advocating partly on behalf of their social inferiors and partly out of an aristocrat’s taste for social arson.”
Yeah, I’m guessing the author of this manifesto hasn’t spent much time observing incels in the wild because, uh, this is just flat-out delusional. I mean, the rest of the manifesto is delusional as well, but this is delusional squared.
Anyhoo, our manifesto writer is convinced that things are just going to get worse and worse on the pussy front, and that eventually “mid men” will be so disgusted by the less-than-perfect women they’re expected to have sex with that they’ll just stop having sex with women altogether. And then the ladies will be SO MAD.
the music will stop and tens of millions of mid women will realize that they’re priced out of the “eligible” husband market altogether. Female social circles will be rent into sexual haves and sexual have-nots. …
The fuck rate will plummet, and there will be hell to pay.
And soon we’ll be overrun not with Karens but with Katies.
Imagine Katie, a 55 year old mid woman, perpetually on a double dose of lexapro and atavan, leaving her low-wage mid-management desk job a few hours early in order to make a birthday party held for her friend’s mini poodle. Now multiply this by 30 million, each one spewing misery and social havoc into the world for decades on end.
Our manifesto writer estimates we’ll “get our first cohort of Katies in five years or so.”
And then, hoo boy! We’re talking “a major civilizational unraveling on our hands”
Our manifesto writer than tries his hand at metaphor again:
Much of the things we assumed were conjured up by the magic of modernity — reliable core infrastructure, cheap food/energy/shipping, functional business apparatus — were in fact gifts bestowed upon us by a hungry god. We stopped sacrificing delicate virgins to him, and tried to offer angry fat hags in their stead. He’s wised to the ruse.
Apparently the “hungry god” is somehow the collective representation of … truckers?
Anyway, after some more blathering from the hungry thirsty manifesto writer he makes a point of assuring us that he’s still pulling the primo pussy.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, as rich girls never really stopped being thin, cute, virgin, and nice. If I really needed to pair up with a mid girl I’d use my SMV [Sexual Market Value] to find one of the good ones.
In a slightly confusing interlude, our manifesto writer kind of suggests without quite explicitly asking that women reading his essay should contact him because they’re probably cuter than average.
That said, our manifesto writer’s “prognosis” for the future is that we’re not facing
an extinction event, but it will put serious pressure on civilizational infrastructure and produce a metric fuckton of female suffering. Hedge against the former by going long consumer goods, short industrials, and befriending a few handy mid men with pathologically high morale. Hedge against the latter by limiting social exposure to the kill zone — that is, concentrators of mid middle-aged women like academia, media, normie social media, politics, and corporate bureaucracy — sooner than later.
I’m sure these women will be utterly devastated that our manifesto writer won’t be having sex and babies with them.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
Give me Katie’s social; I have some quality vibrators to recommend. They do nothing *but* center her sexual pleasure. (Seriously, the idea that women can only come if guys provide the stimulation?!?!? In this economy?!?!)
“I wonder which is right.”
There’s enough shared territory between Fox and Goebbels that I don’t see why either of us has to be wrong.
Wait a sec… I thought the prevailing incel narrative was that Chad and his ilk were getting all the hot chicks, leaving only the dregs for everyone else.
According to our friend here, it’s actually the “mid men” who are getting all the hot chicks via some sort of unwritten social compact.
Where does that leave poor Chad?
Or, to put it in way that an 8/10 aristocrat-cum-social arsonist will understand: Whither Chad?
John Lucas: My understanding of the incel/Red Pill view of history is that “Chads” are a modern problem. In the past, women all went for their “looksmatches” and stayed virginal for them because monogamy was enforced and fornication was forbidden. Chads had to get married before they had sex and therefore were unable to have sex with anyone else (no, really).
Then second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution happened. This freed up women to have sex with whoever they wanted (ie the Chads) and allowed women to act in a less traditionally feminine way. The Chads built great big harems of the most attractive women. Now the only women left for the other men are those who are too unattractive for a Chad.
I am absolutely fine with going to Katie’s dog’s party.
Larry the Cat is thinking “At last. Some proper respect from the bald monkeys.”
Larry for PM!
@ gss ex-noob
At least people would probably recognise Larry.
You know, if civilization crumbles it won’t be due to whiners not getting laid. It’s much more likely to be from an ecological collapse due to our woefully inadequate measures to do something about climate change, which will likely be followed up by famine as a contemporary forms of intensive agriculture no longer working. Can’t grow crops in soil that’s had all its nutrients sucked dry and now is also too hot for good measure.
Protip: consider picking up some basic wilderness survival skills along with knowledge of how to grow food on a small scale. Those supply chains that keep supermarkets stocked aren’t too likely to survive a collapse for long if (or when) it happens.
One of the really striking things about this is the eerily familiar writing style. It’s written in this matter-of-fact yet conversational way reminiscent of an economics blog. “But in exchange you get more civilization.” “[B]ut the cost is almost certainly worth it for everyone involved. Plumbing is nice, you know.” It’s like reading a Vox article by someone obsessed with “mid men” and “egregores.”
The other striking thing is about how wrong its representations of people are. Not just incels as David pointed out, but also feminists and working people. Look at the list of feminist straw women, I mean, “copes.” Does he really think feminists, of all people, are clamoring for the return of single wage earner families headed by a patriarch?
And was there a worse profession he could have picked for his “hot wives = productivity” thesis than truckers? Yes, the men most motivated by the appearance of their wives must be the ones who spend lots of time away from home because of their job. This makes me wonder if he has even talked to a working class man. Does he really think they work to placate their wives instead of paying bills?
Also this reminds me very much of Emile by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, from 1762. His big idea was that in an ideal society, women should be educated to be pleasing for men because that is where women’s power comes from. And if society decides to educate them like men:
“the men will gladly agree; the more women want to resemble them, the less women will govern them, and then men will truly be the masters.”
On the other hand, Rousseau did say that men should try to please the women they are romantically involved with. So at least he has that going for him over bright eyes.
Sooooo…. I want to know how the thin, bubbly, virgin wife has 3 kids. That’s some biblical miracle right there.
Odds that this writer is thin, cute, hygienic, and all that?
Pretty low, I’d wager.
@GSS ex-noob:
There’s a better chance of the Detroit Lions playing in Super Bowl 57.
The future problem solving team at Elliot Rogers Middle School is at it again.
@ Janipurr
I thought that too, then noticed “erstwhile”, which means:
So, he is just saying she was a nice little virgin until marrying her trucker Prince Charming. That part of his manifesto actually makes sense. That part.
[Caution: Comment contains humour]
Okay, amongst the many problems with all these manifestos, one always troubles me:
What do we do with the {ahem} less than fulsomely pulchritudinous women?
I mean, I don’t judge people on looks like this, but our “YOU MUST FOIST ME UPON A HOT WOMAN OR I GO OUT AND KILL!” brethren seem to have overlooked this tiny issue.
After all, the men whom our pamphleteer are to be matched with hotties are of unspecified handsomeness. This, mathematically speaking guarantees that there will be some utter mingers of men in the lot. Therefore ugly chaps will be matched with hotties. This means there will be a surplus of total munters. What will society to with this abundance of women with {cough} “faces for radio”?
Why, it’s like this chap hasn’t thought any of this through and is a clueless misogynist.
Say it ain’t so!
@Louis:
They also overlook the problem of disparate populations: there are a lot more men – even if you exclude soybois, liberal girly-men, and cucks – than there are hot (according to these morons) women. And I highly doubt they’re proposing poly marriages – as in one wife, many husbands, which is the only way the morons’ demands can be met, logistically speaking.
It is indeed almost like they don’t actually think this shit through….
@Louis, Gaebolga:
I mean, this shouldn’t be a surprise: it’s a fundamentally narcissistic attitude.
They obviously aren’t thinking of the interests of the women involved; why should it be a shock that they aren’t really thinking of the interests of any of the other men involved either?
@Jenora
Touché
> men’s desire to secure the partnership, youthful
> attention, and children of attractive women.
If someone with whom the Poster disagreed had written that, he would have accused them of pædophilia.
Andrea Dworkin claimed that the subjects of her book Right-Wing Women believe with the Poster of that piece: sex in marriage is all that civilies men. They also believe that, for their survival, men—naturally misogynistic—must be forced to have no sexual outlet beyond a wife, neither homosexuality nor masturbation nor fornication, otherwise we won’t value any individual woman at all.
@Getald Fnord
To be fair, right-wing men are fucking monsters who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near people
Gaebolga and Jenora,
I think it is a terrible shame that these ideas are so poorly thought through.
A. TERRIBLE. SHAME.
Definitely that. Big shame. The shamest. I’m glad we’re thrashing these very good ideas out in order to improve the whole thesis…
Hmm. Maybe it’s the other thing. I mean, we wouldn’t be mocking these chucklefucks and their rampant hate, would we?
That would be Naughty.
@Gerald Fnord:
Isn’t that basically the same thing the incels and incel-adjacent “enforced monogamy” chuds believe? (Including some of the “intellectual giants” of our age, such as Jordan Peterson, Ross Douthat, and Robin Hanson.)
Gender-essentialist claptrap, obviously …
@Surplus to Requirements
To be clear, Andrea Dworkin said that the women in her book Right-Wing Women believed that sex in marriage is all that civilizes men. That was not what Dworkin herself believed.
“I am not getting laid enough, and the sex I do have isn’t 100% about me. How can I possibly drive a truck!” — something men say all the time.
No woman has ever driven a truck because there’s no such thing as a working-class woman.
Also I didn’t realize that civilization was something you could have more or less of.