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 -
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?
Women are not a hive mind: it would be very surprising indeed if literally every woman in the entire world would be disgusted by Skookum as he currently exists. There's no accounting for taste: I routinely see an ugly and/or overweight man walking down the street holding hands with a plain or even attractive woman. Moreover, if a given woman is disgusted by @SkookumTree as he currently exists, I very much doubt that her opinion of him will significantly change once she learns that he went on a hike in Alaska. (If anything they might be even more repulsed: I can't imagine that spending two months completely alone without interacting with another soul will do much for the social skills of someone who already seems to consider himself rather socially awkward.) I wasn't asking why Skookum thinks (certain) women are disgusted by him - I was asking why he himself thinks that he's disgusting for merely wanting to be in a relationship. If he thinks that he's disgusting because he wants a relationship even though he hasn't "earned the right" to want one by proving his masculinity - well, that implies that the vast majority of modern men are disgusting, as most of us haven't fought in a war or gone hiking in Alaska or etc.. That includes most of the men who post on this site: I'm certainly not a hyper-masculine Chad, and I've never been to war or similar. If Skookum literally believes that any man who wants to be in a relationship without having proved his masculinity is "disgusting" and "hypocritical", I wish he would just come out and say "I am disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship, and so are most of you", rather than dancing around the issue by self-pityingly asserting that he is disgusting and hypocritical, but dodging the question of who else is according to his metrics.
Skookum is able-bodied, physically strong (able to deadlift a perfectly respectable 275 pounds and squat 245, the latter of which far exceeds my PR) and intelligent enough to be training to be a doctor. Any criteria of "the worst of the disposable males" which includes him would probably include you. And, based on your weird comment history, on the off-chance it turns out that you're really Skookum using an alt account, I will be very annoyed by the run-around.
I don't recall him ever saying that he's disgusting for wanting a relationship, only that he's hypocritical for wanting a relationship while being disgusting (because ugly, awkward, etc.).
I'm reminded here of the They Might Be Giants song "Ana Ng," which explores the underlying horror of the "one true soulmate" concept via the singer wondering what if his "soulmate" is a woman living on the other side of the world whom he will certainly never meet.
The relevant set isn't "every woman in the entire world," it's the set of single women likely to be in a position for Skookum to ask out, which is at least a few orders of magnitude smaller.
And why would you find it surprising with this smaller set? I mean, I get there are broad cultural narratives about "someone for everyone" and "plenty of fish in the sea," but as far as I can tell, that's all they are — unsupported cultural narratives, absorbed and perpetuated mostly unquestioned. And while I wouldn't assume a consensus in these parts around the evidentiary value of pure cultural consensus, I wouldn't expect most here to rate it particularly high.
Not to speak for Skookum, but that's not how I read his arguments; the "disgusting" part isn't due to "merely wanting to be in a relationship," it's prior to that.
Again not speaking for Skookum, but it seems to me that you're continuing to misread him, and getting things backwards — his "disgustingness" is not an effect but a cause. It's not that he's disgusting for "wanting a relationship" without having "proved his masculinity," it's that because he is exceptionally disgusting that he has to "prove his masculinity," or else be a hypocrite for refusing to suffer as much as a woman would suffer from a relationship with someone as disgusting as him.
That would be the implication of what you've said, but, again, that's not what I read him as saying. It's not "men who don't do this are disgusting," it's "those men (number not specified) who are disgusting need to do this, to 'offset' the suffering they expect others to endure by tolerating their repulsive presence."
And, again, I'd say the reason he doesn't "just come out and say" that latter is because he's not arguing the former. It's not "disgusting and hypocritical for wanting a relationship," it's "hypocritical for wanting a relationship when disgusting." Again, the "disgusting" part is prior to the "desire" part, not an effect of it.
To summarize my interpretation here:
Being in a relationship with a man she find unattractive causes a woman suffering.
Some men are so unattractive and unlovable that practically any relationship he'll ever have with a woman will fall under (1). Therefore,
When one of this (quite possibly small) set of men desires a relationship with a woman, he is thus desiring that she voluntary choose said suffering; and
Asking someone to voluntarily choose to suffer for you benefit is hypocritical and entitled if you are not willing to similarly voluntarily choose to undergo comparable suffering.
He is a member of this (again, quite possibly small) set.
Note, this is not the argument that you've been attributing to him. It does not imply that most men fall into this "repulsive, unloveable" set, nor that one falls into this set because one hasn't undergone the Hock, or whatever, merely that this applies to the (again, number not specified) men who do.
And I get that you seem to disagree with (2) and/or (5). But can you at least follow the argument?
Indeed it would, and should. I've been telling people for years that my ideal society would almost certainly have me executed.
Edit — Addendum: All that said, I'd still prefer he doesn't do his suicidal stunt in the state I live in, because it doesn't matter how much he repeats "don't look for me," if he goes missing, the state will send out people to find him (or his corpse), which will cost money, when we have a crappy economy and serious budget woes. (Hence my "why not just put people like us out of our misery?" take.)
I think the absurdity of your chain of "reasoning" is derived partly from the hidden assumption that only women in relationships with unattractive men suffer, whereas women in relationships with hypermasculine Chads are walking around in a state of uninterrupted and unqualified ecstasy 24/7.
This is nonsense, as should be obvious to anyone who's interacted with another human being at some point in their lives. Everyone in a relationship will hurt the other person in the relationship at some point, in ways overt (domestic abuse, cheating, being a deadbeat) or subtle (passive-aggression, neglectfulness, forgetting birthdays). Even in a healthy relationship devoid of abuse, petty squabbling and so on, every relationship entails sacrifices, compromises, opportunity costs and accommodations which could be characterised as "suffering" e.g. passing up on your dream job in London because your spouse and family live in Berlin; you might not enjoy dinner with the in-laws but you go because it keeps herself happy etc.. The idea that you can enter into a relationship with someone and everything in your life becomes better and they never cause you any amount of hurt or pain (even indirectly) and you never have to make any sacrifices or change your lifestyle for the benefit of the relationship - this is a childish adolescent fantasy. No mature adult person going on a date will "pitch" themselves as "if you get into a relationship with me, you will never experience upset or suffering and will instead be swimming in a lake of good vibes only in perpetuity" - they will instead say "I have a great deal to offer, and getting into a relationship with me will have a net-positive impact on your life - but both of us are only human and are bound to cause each other trouble and upset from time to time". To quote Bob Marley: "The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for." Please tell me you don't actually believe that every woman with a physically attractive boyfriend or husband has never been upset or hurt by something he did. No relationship - none - longer than six months old meets this description.
So it's trivially true that "being in a relationship with a man she finds unattractive causes a woman suffering." - being in a relationship with anyone (attractive, unattractive, male, female, tall, short, fit, fat) will cause a woman some nonzero amount of suffering. What I think you really mean is that the amount of suffering visited upon a woman in a relationship with an unattractive men is net-negative: that the life of every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man is strictly worse than it would have been if she had stayed single. I don't think you or Skookum (assuming you aren't a Skookum sock-puppet) have anything near the kind of data to justify such a hyperbolic claim: the idea that "every woman in a relationship with an unattractive man (in the entire world throughout human history) would have been happier on net had she remained single" is just such an alien proposition to me that contradicts everything I know about the world. It's more bonkers than astrology and Scientology combined.
Let's zoom in from "the entirety of the female sex throughout history in every country in the world" to "you and Skookum". Maybe you both believe that you're so ugly that you can be reasonably confident that any woman who enters into a relationship with one of you would see her quality of life decline precipitously as a result. I'm assuming neither of you would cop to being the kind of men who would beat their girlfriends, or insult and belittle them, or cheat on them, or gamble all their money away. So you're essentially claiming that you're so ugly that the magnitude of your ugliness completely negates whatever positive impact you might have on a prospective girlfriend's life through your other positive qualities. "Yes I provide for her, yes I listen to her, yes I'm emotionally nurturing, yes I satisfy her in bed, yes she finds me funny, yes I get along well with her friends and family, yes I would never insult her - but none of that matters because I'm just ever so hideous, and how could a woman ever love a man who looks like THIS?!!"
With all due respect, chill the fuck out. I am quite confident you are not the fucking Phantom of the Opera. We both know that if you DM'd me a selfie, I would be looking at a picture of a perfectly average dude in his twenties - not strikingly handsome by any means, but far from hideous. You won't do this, because you've built up this cosmic self-pitying self-absorbed tower of a belief system - in which you are forever doomed to be miserable and inflict misery on others because you drew the short straw in the genetic lottery through no fault of your own - and if someone were to say to you "dude, relax, you look fine" you'd be forced to confront the fact that this elaborate edifice you've constructed was based on faulty assumptions - namely:
All that being said, I imagine that many women in a relationship with you would be unhappy. Not because you're ugly (as I said, I very much doubt that you're anything like as ugly as you think you are), but because it doesn't sound like much fun being in a relationship with a self-pitying narcissist who's unable to take his girlfriend at her word that she sincerely enjoys his company for its own sake (while acknowledging that he's not a 10), and who cannot be dissuaded from believing that she only entered into a relationship with him out of some misguided sense of pity. You don't need to hike to Alaska for two months to fix this problem (in fact doing so will do nothing to address it) - you need to talk to a therapist and get out of your own head.
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