Self advertisement at the cost of reality



A question: would you rather have your child have polio or autism? Forget the whole vaccine issue. Would you rather your child have polio or autism. Did you pick autism?



Even back in 1955, your kid had approximately a 1 in 13 chance of dying if they contracted Polio. Don’t like those odds? Well, if your child has Autism, they have a 1 in 1 chance of always having autism.  You could throw back that polio is infectious and therefore you’d rather your child have autism than polio. I’d say that argument betrays much about the kind of person who would make it. We’re not talking about other people’s kids, or even other people in general. I’m not saying you should go around flipping people off as you let your kid pour acid on his classmates face, but isn’t the whole point of parenting to ensure your offspring have the best chance at survival and doing well in life? Or do we just have to guarantee that they survive? What would that say about you to yourself as a parent if you believed the latter?

Pro vaxxers don’t have to humor any argument anti-vaxxers make at all, current medical knowledge available clearly tells us vaccines don’t cause autism. So why do people still feel the need to post shit like this? Is it because there’s a lot of misinformation on the internet and you’re just trying to combat it? Well, certainly not the above post, whose goal is to shame others that don’t believe as she does. Not only that, but who would this even reach on the side of the trenches? No one who is an anti-vaxxer is going to read this post or anything like it and say, “You know what? I’m going to re evaluate my opinion.”

And you have to know that. Posts like these aren’t meant to contribute anything to any conversation except one thing, “Look at me! I’m on the right side of this conversation! I’m smart! No really, I really am!” These posts have nothing to do with combating misinformation of any form and everything to do with self-advertisement. You’re selling yourself by picking the side you think all of the smart/cool/whatever people are on, and joining in the condescension of the opposition, which is why that makes you a bigger asshole than an anti-vaxxer whose raising a little plague bearer. By the way, there’s that one question I asked a little ways back, so I’ll clarify and ask again:

Your child can have either polio or Autism. Your child may survive polio but they will always have autism. Which one would you rather your child have?

I have a friend that works as a stocker for a retail chain, let’s call him Joe. Joe has an autistic co-worker on his team who can barely keep up with the duties of stocking. A job most people would think is absolutely brain dead keeps his co-worker in circles the entire time. Tell me, where else could his co-worker flourish or function? He’s told me the kid tries his hardest and I take him at his word, and what this means is that even at his co-workers maximum capacity, it’s still not enough.

Thing is, what if that’s the standard of autism? What if that is the normative expression of the disorder? Not the quirky and lovable Sheldon Cooper style of autism, but the I can barely function doing basic tasks style of autism. What do we do then? I mean, as a society, how do we care for these people?

How do we care for those that cannot care for themselves?

How do we lift up those who can’t stay afloat?

These aren’t easy questions. In fact, they are insanely difficult questions to confront, and even more taxing to try and solve. This is why these conversations continue. No one wants to deal with this reality. It’s much easier to posture and feel good than it is to face problems like these.  Regardless, these are the questions that need to be dealt with. The only logical response to “Do you think vaccines cause autism?,” shouldn’t be to shame anyone or try to make yourself look cool, it’s this:

Who gives a shit about whether or not vaccines cause autism. The world gets more complex by the fucking day, and there is a whole segment of people that simply cannot keep up. Autism, Down syndrome, mental retardation. What are we going to do about it? We can’t do nothing, that’s leaving them to a fate no one deserves. We need to figure out a way to get these people to not only function in society, but function well in society. And they need to be able to function well, or at the very least we need to give it everything we got in the attempt. Otherwise, the only thing their existence proves is that we pity them too much to let them die but don’t give enough of a shit to help them, which is a disgusting thought we should not allow ourselves to feel comfortable with.



How to be a Cuckold

Despite whatever you may think of it, GQ sets the standard for what’s acceptable for discussion in male culture. Yes, this is true regardless of whether or not you read it. Recently, it’s apparently now acceptable to explain to your friends why it’s a good thing to be a cuck, at least Jennifer Wright’s version of it in her article. I have no idea why GQ, formerly gentleman’s quarterly would willing put out an article on how to justify being a cuck. “Well, you gotta pander to your base every once in awhile.” I’m inclined to agree.

What’s interesting about this from the get go is that the article is ostensibly a woman explaining why you (read:male) should want to be a cuck. My first instinct was to ask what kind of woman wants a cuck for man? Oh yeah, a cuckcoldress. There was a time when the insult ‘cuck’ had a hell of a lot of bite to it. Now, just like faggot and bitch, it’s just a go to reference when you’re arguing on the internet and feeling lazy. Normally, I’d leave this alone because of that. However, the fact that GQ puts this out means there’s something fishy going on, and I intend to find out exactly what that is.

Important distinction to make here is that we are not using the traditional sense of the word cuckold, but modern fetish definition, wherein a man is complicit in the act of another guy giving the ol’ in-out to his wife. I didn’t say he was cool with it, only that he allows it to happen. As the author describes it, “…needlessly relinquished manliness, for selling out and caving in. The original metaphor of watching your partner getting slammed by another dude now simply means abandoned principles and a lack of backbone.” She then back this up with a disbelieving ‘uh huh’ as she prepares to eviscerate (see what I did there) all the ‘macho men’ that exist inside her head, possibly also her workplace. What’s her sweeping refutation?

“First of all, listening to others, accepting criticism, and evolving in your views—“caving in”—is a good thing.”

Wright conflates a lack of backbone with ‘evolving your views’. Wow, what a brilliant sentiment. Let me ask you males and females alike a question. What would your response be to the following exchange if you had it with your partner.

“I don’t know if I can agree with [insert opposing political views].”

“Look, you’re not caving in or anything by agreeing with me. You’re evolving your views.”

If your response is anything but throwing your drink in your partner’s face for a) not taking your thoughts seriously in any way and b) possibly the most condescending statement to ever exist then all hope is lost for you and you should stop reading this now.

This can only happen because the author, like most people, doesn’t understand the nature of being a cuck.  The only way to find out though is to watch cuckold porn and analyze it from a story perspective. This is something I never recommend doing (analyzing porn), as the answers you will gleam are terrifying. I did it though, lemme tell you what I found.

All porn is drenched (see what I did there) in symbolism, cuckold porn is no different. What’s interesting to note is the wife gets descriptors (hot, busty, whatever) While men get labels. The labels here are ‘cuck’ and ‘bull’. The bull is usually a black guy which is the author implies is racist. Her misstep is in the fact that the bull being black is less important than what being black represents.

The black guys are not ‘only’ black, but also buff, good looking, and apparently great at sex (read:huge penis). The bull in cuckold porn is a representation of archetypal hyper-masculinity, which is seen as something distinct and removed from the ‘cuck’. If the bull is the ‘other’ than the only way to express this visually is by making him look different in every way, including his skin color.

“If you wonder why the prospect of your wife having sex with another man would be more humiliating if that man were black, well, congratulations; you’re not a racist.” Sorry Jen, you have your racism backwards. The prospect of a black guy having sex with your wife when you’re white isn’t humiliating, he’s an archetype IE he doesn’t actually exist to the cuck. The real humiliation would be another white guy having sex with your wife.

If a black bull is the other, than a white bull is the uncanny valley. He’s like you, but not. He’s a better version of you (physically speaking). What’s worse is that it is exactly that which would make it even more humiliating; the cuck has the power to enhance his physical appearance and increase his confidence. If the black bull is the representation of the masculine archetype seen as unachievable by the protagonist (read:cuck) then a white bull would be an acceptance of chosen deficiency within the protagonist.

In some variations, the wife will taunt the cuckold with lines like, “You could never do this for me.” This is demonstrative of a simple fact about cuckold fantasies: They’re male fantasies. The verbal taunts are confirmation of the cuckold’s fear that no matter the trappings of power he acquires, sex is where the true power lies. His wife wants it and he doesn’t have it. This can then be seen as disavowal by eroticization. The wife explaining the cuckold’s lack of true power to the cuck confirms that he is important enough to be told in the first place; that a real man knows what he has and doesn’t have. This then allows the cuck to actually believe he is in fact more masculine as a result. 

cuckI wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t explain the other variation though; that in which the cuckold sexually participates in the act itself. Usually this is sucking the bull off, or eating his jism, sometimes out of the cuck’s wife’s vagina. Usually from the wife. Here is where the neurosis of the cuckold is fully revealed and put on display. The belief that “true” masculinity can only be achieved by association. The other belief is that this association is in fact his wife.

In this context, the wife is the archetypal female which bestows masculinity (Here, swallows this cum out of me) to the protagonist, which he eagerly accepts. Notice the word ‘achetypal’ because it’s not an accident. The wife only matters in so far as she provides her husband’s masculinity IE she’s not real to the cuck either.

What we get from this ultimately is that a cuck is a man who believes that masculinity comes from women’s approval and is so desperate to feel like a man that he will devalue himself for it to other women. Cuckold porn can be seen as a ritual of worship toward masculine archetypes over which a goddess presides.

It is this definition of a cuck that is in my opinion the actual expression of the insult, not merely “someone who has abandoned principles” but “someone who has abandoned the principles of masculinity in order to worship them using women as a proxy idol.”

That’s pretty damning. What’s more damning though is that the author herself feeds into this. She takes note that anti-cucks may get attractive (Read:what she thinks is the only thing that matters to men) girlfriends or wives, but that those women are brainwashed/stupid (“society trains some women to tolerate a lot of buffoonish behavior in exchange for financial security.”)  What’s interesting to me is that she believes other women are stupid for tolerating idiocy in exchange for financial security. I gotta ask, what’s wrong with that?  is it wrong if a woman chose to do that of her own volition, or does it have to be society controlling her? She points out that the anti-cucks are people like Donald trump, Tucker Carlson, and Scott Adams. Funny how they’re all old ugly white guys. Then she points out that people like George Clooney (old but good looking), Jason Kander (who?) and Justin Trudeau are called cucks. The one thing these people have in common with the author is that they agree with her political views.

However, pointing out these exemplars of manliness isn’t enough to sell the readers on why they should be cucks, so Wright decides to sweeten the deal: “…The action of a cuck who also seems like he might be someone we’d have mutually satisfying sex with.” Of course, she can’t promise sex, only a shot at sex, which is weird because apparently you can also get a shot at sex without being a cuck too. I guess you only get dumb chicks though, and that’s the downside? The author is a bit unclear. However, what we can see is the feeding into the definition I was talking about. “Men who agree with me politically are desirable,” she says. Whether conscious or not, she’s still using sex and the female archetype to bestow masculinity. She uses the promise of a chance at sex as part of her actual reasoning on why you should be cool with being called a cuck. The only way you would agree with her is because you think this is true, or in other words, that a woman can decide if your masculine or not. This tweet is no surprise as an opener to the article:

Why is being called a cuck desirable? Because it now means you’re sexually viable, which is the long con of GQ. The point now is that the abandoning of masculine archetypes is now the new masculinity. There used to be the new age guys from the early 2000’s who told themselves and everyone they don’t have to subscribe to male archetypes. Now we have male feminists telling us our own sense of masculinity is toxic. I’m not going to comment on this, it’s not worth the time and anyway everyone else has slammed this. What I will say though is that you can’t expect almost two decades of “What even is being a man anyway?” without that becoming the default. Why is this the long con of GQ though? Here’s a thought: If men no longer subscribe to traditional archetypes of masculinity, it then means that new ones have to take their place. If someone could do that in a way that makes money off them, wouldn’t that be sweet?

Yeah, that’d be pretty sweet.