The library system here is bad and I’ve had trouble finding things to read. So I grabbed three books off the NYT bestseller’s list because, it’s all good, right?
One of the books was titled Assholes Finish First by Tucker Max – never heard of the guy.
I read a couple of experiences and decide this isn’t for me – I’M ALL GROWN UP !
But I ran out of things to read and I started it again from the beginning.
Tucker Max is a guy who started a website in the early days of the blogosphere to publish his ‘writing.’ His writing is about having sex with women – lots of women – women he picks up in bars. He claims to be both a genius and awesome because he mocks them and then focks them – yep, that’s the extent of his story.
His sex-ploits are mostly very sad, but there are some funny moments in the book.
The second part of this book is different than the first part and IHTSBIH in that he is reflecting on his life.
What I found fascinating was the insights he was developing about himself and how he had no clue what they meant.
It is okay to mock them, fock them, and then cast them off because he took the time to get to know them ( as little time as possible). He is thereby a humanist, which is why he doesn’t frequent hookers.
He also discovered, to his complete surprise, that his fans were losers and posers without grasping the symmetry there.
Also, once he became famous, woman were objectifying him and using him the same way he had been using them prior to becoming famous. They began writing on the web about having sex with him.
And it is none-too-flattering.
The guy is basically a primitive narcissist who doesn’t understand the dynamic of dominance and sublimation (to divert the expression of an instinctual desire or impulse from its unacceptable form to one that is considered more socially or culturally acceptable.)
I’m never going to see this film, but thought I would share. One thing I will do is ask the next person I meet who went to Duke if he knew Tucker – that’s suggested in the book and if you don’t know why I’ll ask….
“Tucker Max – never heard of the guy.”
Tucker Max is like Maddox — a total dick who got in on Internet memeology early, so established his place well before he would have gotten drowned out by the other noise.
Apparently, however, like Maddox he’s good for a laugh if you keep the fact that he’s serious away from your forebrain.
Who the hell is Maddox?
If you had to ask
So hate isn’t the sole property of the MUBI forum?
…. I could answer that with more links but I don’t hate you guys enough to introduce you to what’s out there.
…you’ve mentioned a few before.
And so we’ll leave it at that.
I’m curious Robert, does Max’s writing come across as actually real things that he actually did/thought, or is it an obviously-created literary persona?
It’s supposed to be real things that he actually did – he considers himself to be very quick with a mock.
Like I said, the fascinating thing is that he is reflecting on some past situations just now realizing, he was looking into a mirror. He just has no idea what he was seeing. The guy is a drunkard – that is part of his personae – to be able to outdrink anyone and still be able to mock everyone around him.
Okay Fratire – in the book he claimed to create a new literary genre.
Tucker Max, after first hearing the term during a telephone interview with St. John, said,
“One thing I will do is ask the next person I meet who went to Duke if he knew Tucker”
One of these days you gotta down and see the Duke campus. It’s a game preserve for Tucker Maxes.
“The guy is a drunkard – that is part of his personae – to be able to outdrink anyone and still be able to mock everyone around him.”
It worked for Bukowski . . .
heh evidently so was UNC.
Jeez, I didn’t think Maddox was still around. Kind of hoping that he wasn’t.
The people I’ve talked to who are into social engineering stuff say “It isn’t about manipulating people into liking you, it’s about finding more effective ways to create connection based on who you are.”
This guy seems to be direly missing the point, and I get the definite impression it isn’t even about lust for him, it’s about trophies.
He locked onto an extremely primitive dynamic: dominate & sublimate
His mocking of these women portends dominance and they in turn are compelled to have sex with him in order to sublimate that ‘dominance’.
The book is a view into the emptiness and stoopididee of a sex-positive world. A world where sex is uncomplicated by meaning.
Oy. Manipulating people into sex and exploiting the insecurities inherent in patriarchal gender roles (or inherent in emotionally damaged women, IIRC from his blogs they are a favorite of his) has nothing to do with being sex positive. In a sex positive society, you wouldn’t be able to manipulate people in such a way because they wouldn’t have so much anxiety over sex. He specifically targets insecure women, not women who are sex positive and comfortable with themselves and their sexualities.
Hypothetical question: Is a world where sex is uncomplicated by meaning worse than a world where the meaning of sex is constructed by men in order to keep women acting in line with their own primitive impulses? Would a complete naturalist approach to sex be healthier?
What I’ve heard from ‘social engineers’ is that it’s best to approach people on a level of equal social status or slightly higher, because if you approach somebody as their inferior they don’t respect you and find you annoying. Teasing is a way of establishing equality.
The outright mocking/superiority approach… yeah, that would only work on people who are so accustomed to being dominated that it makes them feel secure.
“Sex positive” — I’ve never heard that term before. Is this an academic term?
Jirin — do “social engineers” write lonely hearts columns?
Targeting insecure women to have sex with them is a Casanovian strategy. Surely not something new. On the other hand, the fact that he feels compelled to do this says a lot about his own insecurities.
Everything you wrote is from the perspective of a m/f societal power dynamic.
Put Tucker in prison and he would experience the same dominate & sublimate dynamic, wouldn’t he?
The dynamic is extremely primitive, so I’m not sure you can make this assertion:In a sex positive society, you wouldn’t be able to manipulate people…
I’m positing that, In a sex-positive society, there is no meaning. The sex in Tucker’s books there is no meaning, no value that is why it can be freely exchanged – by free I mean no commitment or term relationship.
’m positing that, In a sex-positive society, there is no meaning. The sex in Tucker’s books there is no meaning, no value that is why it can be freely exchanged – by free I mean no commitment or term relationship.
Sounds like the way that fish reproduce… or something like that…
Teasing is a way of establishing equality.
Yeah, in the second part of the book where he rationalizing, I think he see the mock as form of teasing.
He is careful to point out he wouldn’t mock something beyond the person’s control – although he makes fun of the amputee he has sex with; the midgets etc.
@Odi Yeah, I think fish are more committed than Tucker.
They haven’t made a film of this crap, have they? Or has this not been moved to off topic.
I must admit, as utterly repellant as he is, I thought it was mildly amusing when Tucker Max offered $500,000 donation to Planned Parenthood and they turned him down ( I think he wanted them to name a center after him or something).
The sex in Tucker’s books there is no meaning, no value that is why it can be freely exchanged – by free I mean no commitment or term relationship.
From what I have read it’s definitely not a “free exchange” because he sees himself as wresting sex away from damaged women who have some “weakness” that prevents them from stopping him. The core of that belief system is the sex negative belief that beautiful women hate sex for the most part, but some beautiful women are “broken” so sex can be taken from them:
“As a result of her severe and unquenchable insecurity, she was quite promiscuous.”
“Didn’t go as well as you thought it would, did it? I bet some random guy is getting pussy tonight! Female insecurity: the gift that keeps on giving!”
Obviously he has nothing but contempt for these women for being “promiscuous.” Even if he’s willing to exploit their insecurities to get sex himself, it’s still sex negative because he still sees “promiscuous” women as being damaged.
If he were engaging in sex positive beliefs and activities, the sex would have meaning because it would be a positive, enjoyable experience between two people.
Wow what a horrible person…
beta males finish last.
that is all.
I thought the omega ones did.
So what is the perspective from the “broken” side? if sex is taken they will….?
He couldn’t care less about the other side and he still thinks it is a positive for him.
Thanks for pulling up those quotes …shudder
Yes, the thread is attached to the film.
This thread is an offshoot from the Shame thread.
ODI: Nah, they are not even in the race!