Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am also still waiting for a picture that proves your irrecoverable unattractiveness.
While I'm solidly below average physically, I'm no Quasimodo. The unattractiveness isn't the kind that can be readily captured in still photos.
For an extreme example, consider Elliot Rodger. Was it his physical appearance that was the problem?
No, it was his social awkwardness, introversion, lack of people skills and narcissistic entitlement - his physical appearance had essentially nothing to do with his loneliness. I very much doubt going to Alaska for however long would have helped him with any of the above.
If he cooked up anything that was hock like, he would definitely not have the same type of narcissistic entitlement. Supreme Gentlemen are already Supreme and so don't need to fucking Hockmaxx.
You've often compared the Hock to fighting in a war, Navy SEAL training or other physically taxing tests of endurance and determination. Your theory assumes that anyone who undergoes a Hock-esque ordeal would never commit a mass shooting (as Rodger did), but I don't even have to go back earlier than this week to find an example of a military veteran doing exactly that. Can't wait to hear your rationalisation for how it doesn't count because he only went through boot camp.
I reiterate: if you want to do your camping trip, go for it, but don't delude yourself into thinking it'll fix all of your problems in one fell swoop, or that it's the underlying secret to human civilization or a male rite of passage or similar. I'm not telling you this out of spite or meanness: I'm urging you to manage your expectations and be realistic. You say "the Hock provideth" so often it's starting to sound like a religious incantation, which is not a healthy approach to adopt in the pursuit of self-improvement.
Surviving the Hock will mean that I am no longer both disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship.
I don't know what on earth makes you think you are disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship now. There are plenty of people who post on this site who are in relationships (myself included) or even in marriages - are they disgusting hypocrites for getting into said relationships without toiling in the Arctic circle for months? Why, of all things, is that the rule-in criterion for who is entitled to be in a relationship (or even entitled to want to be in a relationship)? Should the human race go extinct because most people can't afford to travel to the Arctic circle for months at a time?
I know you're going to give me some self-pitying/self-deprecating spiel about how all those people in relationships have actually made something of themselves, which means they're entitled to want a romantic partner - unlike you, who's so uniquely loathsome and contemptible that he ought to be euthanized unless he can Prove his Worth by etc.. To which all I can say is - bullshit. I haven't made much of myself (overweight, temporarily living with my parents, failed writer, failed musician, boring email job) and have had more than my fair share of attacks of self-loathing over the years - but the last time I actually thought there was something suspect about my desire to be in a relationship, I was a literal teenager. Wanting to be in a romantic relationship is the most normal and healthy desire a human being can have, regardless of life circumstances. I literally cannot envision any person, no matter how pathetic or loathsome, for whom knowing that they would like to be in a romantic relationship would lower my estimation of them - if I met a literal convicted murderer who killed children without remorse, and he said "I'd like to have a girlfriend", that wouldn't cause me to think any less of him. I cannot even fathom how you arrived at the conclusion that the desire to be in a romantic relationship is only legitimate conditional on having achieved XYZ, and is otherwise disgusting or hypocritical. For that matter, I can't, offhand, think of any desire meeting that description. A paedophile's desire to rape children does not become any less disgusting because he is a war hero; wanting to be rich is a perfectly legitimate desire to have, even if you are a lazy bum.
The more you tell me about your worldview, the more baffling and incoherent it seems to me, and I wish you would actually try to seriously consider the well-meaning criticisms or questions people have raised about your beliefs here, rather than just dismissing them with "no, you guys have it all wrong, it's Hock or bust." You've clearly been thinking about this stuff for so long that you've become trapped in a groove, a web of cached thoughts that you can't snap yourself out of. For someone who claims to be uniquely loathsome and awful, you seem to be suspiciously confident that your diagnosis of yours and society's ills is 100% accurate, and your proposed remedy 100% guaranteed to work. It's very easy to circle all the way around from self-loathing and end up at arrogant condescending solipsism (God knows I've done it myself), and there's something uniquely unbecoming about this cocktail of victimisation complex, self-pity and egotism.
So, do me a courtesy. Without any evasions, cop-outs, goofy stylistic flourishes ("provideth", "ambulances", "-maxx") or romantic fatalism (and without invoking the [extremely statistically rare] anecdote about the acquaintance of yours who was stabbed by his partner) - please tell me, in plain language, why you think the fact that you want to be in a romantic relationship makes you a disgusting hypocrite.
…
…
I believe Skookum does so here:
TVTropes has multiple tropes ("And Now You Must Marry Me," "I Have You Now, My Pretty" "Scarpia Ultimatum, etc." full of examples across centuries of stories about the suffering of women submitting to the attentions of a man to whom she's not attracted — or even just under the threat of such. How is it not at least somewhat hypocritical, how does it not speak of entitlement, to expect a woman to voluntarily submit to such misery, and not be willing to voluntarily submit oneself to a comparable level of suffering? If not "the Hock," what can match the ordeal a woman undergoes, being in a romantic relationship with someone she finds repellent?
What about that is bullshit, and what is your evidentiary basis for saying so?
As somewhat similar, from back in 2017 on SSC:
…
…
…
And further on the livestock analogy, when it comes to chickens — as opposed to cattle, sheep, etc. — the solution is indeed the culling of most male chicks.
So why not at least offer some sort of analogous "relief" for those human males facing a similar life of suffering under such unmet drives? Why not respect the self-determination of individuals to address such an irremediable condition by providing them assistance in attaining a dignified exit from an undignified existence?
And on what grounds do you say that the likes of Skookum aren't "ought to be euthanized"?
I'd point out that in most "primitive" cultures, girls become women — full adult members of the community — automatically at menarche, while boys have to "earn" their manhood through rites of initiation — difficult, usually painful rites. And it was indeed possible to fail said initiations.
I recall once reading a thread on Tumblr talking about how the prevalence of "third genders" wasn't nearly the support for modern transgender and nonbinary identities that some like to argue it is, by going into depth on the Polynesian example, laying out the details and pointing out that the closest modern counterpart isn't "trans-woman" or "non-binary," but a formalized, institutionalized version of "prison bitch." And that often, many who ended up in such roles were indeed those boys who failed to "become men" — that these societies did indeed have a "gender binary," just that instead of "man" and "woman," it's "man" and "non-man," with some biological males falling into the latter category by failure to earn membership in the former.
Sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive. Women are precious, men are expendable. Women attain full personhood, membership in the tribe, the concern of others, automatically. Males have to earn the privilege of being a person, through their deeds and contribution to the tribe, to women and children. We must earn the care and compassion of society — and those who fail don't matter; those who fail are expendable, disposable. So, in times of modern plenty, and when women have more options outside of marriage and "settling," why not dispose of at least the worst of disposable males, or at least assist them in disposing of themselves?
How about working a job one finds abhorrent?
That was the deal. That was what marriage meant. The woman agrees to provide exclusive sexual access to a man, and the man in turn agrees to support the wife and her children.
It is not necessary that a woman should be attracted to her husband, any more than it is necessary that a man should enjoy his job. All that is necessary is that they should do their duty.
The welfare state, alimony, and child support destroyed the deal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link