Male Sexuality through Giant Apes and Dinosaurs

There was never another time historically where having a conversation about the basic nature of reality- what we encounter in our lived experiences- would have made much sense. Rather, it would have come off as insanity, but here we are in our horrifying alternate-1985 wasteland engaged in a perpetual argument over what should be the prologue of the story.

Reality should be our starting point, the toolkit and blueprint for human greatness, not a prolonged debate.

But what the fuck is reality? Tough to know in a world of misinformation and unreality, served by people raised on the same deliberate bullshit. Modernity is a nice sounding hypothesis playing out in real time, but without an end-date to honestly access the damn thing. The people who drew it up are long dead, and what’s left are loudmouth idiots and unreality profiteers.

The harder we pull away from reality, the more reality commands our return- the misguided team behind “Ghostbusters” (2016) will learn this the hard way when the film opens. A successful mainstream movie must be a delicate balance between the kind of unreality that people want to believe and a significant-enough adherence to the memetic mechanics of real life; women aren’t disposable scientist vigilantes.

The extent of which the mainstream will accept the unreality of two silly ladies as Mrs. President will be answered in the final days of the campaign as they firebomb the countryside with enough guilt and shame to sweat out last-minute converts. When our favorite Alpha male puts his balls on the table against Team Idiot, we’ll get a read on where the mainstream is in their perception of reality. Female Ghostbusters may be too much for the normie to bear, but embarrassing old Hillary?

Impossible to know- but there will come a time where a future generation of men collectively label us a bunch of godamn faggots for even considering this shit show. You want me to vote for a woman, give me a once-in-a-lifetime Alpha female and sell me on the fucking thing; not this- not the silly idiot and her embarrassing bestie.

The Progressive narrative promises triumph over nature and an accessible command of reality- as long as you buy-into the fairy tale wholesale. That the more burdensome aspects of reality can be altered and sanitized; its weight can be alleviated. The Left is so determined to push transgender-acceptance, not for the handful of people that a ridiculous bathroom law would positively affect, but to protect the idea that we are only a sexually ambiguous sack of goo; not an identity built around race, ethnicity, family, gender, or sexuality.

This socially anarchic freedom, where it seems like we’re given the ability to self-define our identity from a rainbow of options, is only an illusion. The makeup of our identity is closely guided by a rigid authority serving as a controllable replacement for nature. A hot blooded, masculine man makes his own decisions but once you sap his testosterone and diminish his sexual options, suddenly embarrassing grandma has a voter.

Globalism is the logical end to this sanitization- a global economy that pushes the plebs through a big play-doh food factory where you walk away a media addict with a Facebook account. If you’re lucky you’ll get a VR headset, where you can sit in your dank shithole apartment, set the damn thing to “dutiful wife, Mckayla Moroney, moutain living” and zone out until the Chinese food comes- lunch special, “generous portions” according to the menu, so I’ll order two and keep a bit for dinner.

A modern man is lying if he says this idea isn’t seductive. I was going to say a modern single man, but who am I kidding? Married men will need the “dutiful wife simulator” the most… but as women can live out their unreality fantasies in the real world- playing the corporate powerhouse, Dr. Female Pediatrician, the lawyer in heels, all while being parceled out Alpha male attention in twenty-minute blocks; between wine, food, travel and their beloved Netflix… the male unreality fantasy must remain hidden, and increasingly virtual; spectator sports as a substitute for masculinity, video games as a substitute for achievement,  pornography as a substitute for sex, and even YouTube providing doses of virtual femininity.

While females are trading their youth and beauty for endless casino nights, the majority of men aren’t leaving the house… but the dark cloud of reality looms, and the storm is coming.

 

vlcsnap-2016-07-06-17h47m10s009.png

There is an impressive self-awareness to RKO’s magnificent “King Kong” (1933), a movie about making a movie, decades before such a thing became hip. In the film, director Carl Denham, played by Robert Armstrong, laments the idea that his audience has already grown bored of African safari movies- surely a still-novel concept for 1933. Denham explains that people want to see a pretty woman and a love story when they go out to the theater. And on short notice he finds Ann Darrow, played by the stunning Fay Wray, to star as his heroin.

vlcsnap-2016-07-06-17h40m37s478.png

Perhaps taking their own advice, “King Kong” features a love story as its emotional center. The movie absent of romance would still have cool scenes like Kong fighting a dinosaur, and running amok in downtown Manhattan, but would ultimately come off more like a movie for kids. Adults inherently understand that the mating dance of man and woman- the romance and emotions that come with it, and the new generation of children that the union implies- is not only the height of beauty within the human experience but also its greatest depth of reality.

The cartoonish unreality of King Kong and Godzilla having a fist-fight is meaningless without the core of Ann Darrow’s naive femininity melting the hardened exterior of highly masculine Jack Driscoll’s icy heart. And when Driscoll relents and shows a vulnerability in the presence of gorgeous Darrow, the emotional resonance with the audience is deep due to the established credibility of Driscoll’s masculinity; the moment feels special.

vlcsnap-2016-07-06-17h41m33s964.png

The modern beta-male is taught to start backwards, showing a vulnerability and relinquishment of masculinity foremost to women thinking that this alone is what attracted a Darrow to a Driscoll- this, of course, is unreality.

The over-arching theme of “King Kong” is a cautionary tale for those who attempt to control the inherently uncontrollable- between civilization and nature, nature will always win. When Denham captures the giant ape, he brings it to Broadway to serve as an attraction; Broadway, of course, as a symbol of controllable unreality.

Dangerous savagery doesn’t have a place amongst a civilized culture- the ape was destine to run amok, and New York City was given a lesson in reality.

Maybe a giant ape wouldn’t sell movie tickets sixty years later, but how about dinosaurs?  “Jurassic Park” (1993) takes this idea further; the violent and uncontrolled reality of dinosaurs met with the sterile unreality of a modern theme park. Like Jack Dricoll in “King Kong,” Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is too preoccupied with outside interests to bother with family life- Grant doesn’t like kids and seems asexual.

 And the kicker is that Grant’s actually dating fellow scientist, Dr. Ellie Sattler- played by plain-jane Laura Dern. The good doctor isn’t asexual at all! But poor bastard Grant is cast in a world of early 90s Feminism, where proper morality dictates that male sexuality must be sterile and exist only for utility. We wouldn’t want Dr. Sattler feeling too much like a woman, of course- lucky her. Certainly any off-camera sexuality between the two is predicated on serious negotiation and a firm handshake.

 

The lack of sexual viability on Grant’s part seems like a deliberate move by director Spielberg, as a commentary on male sexuality. When Sattler meets “chaos theorist,”  Dr. Ian Malcolm (icky Jeff Goldblum), he takes immediate interest and is able to behave with her in a far more sexualized manner than impotent Grant. Upon mentioning his interest in Sattler to Grant, telling Grant that he’s always looking for a future ex-wife, Grant- true to form- uncomfortably mentions his relationship with Sattler.

vlcsnap-2016-07-06-17h51m30s176
Oh, clever Steven Spielberg, you subtle motherfucker! I get it! While good Dr. Grant is the nauseatingly respectful boyfriend to strong and independent Ellie- and, yes, if that means keeping his dick in his pants in the name of her fragile ego, so be it- “chaos theorist” Malcolm can speak to her in the language of a sexual animal. And Sattler unwittingly responds positively, as if icky Jeff Goldblum is some kind of godamn pussy whisperer.

Spielberg represents unrestrained male sexuality as chaos- something negative, to be contained.

Hear that, white boy? Sit down, shut up, and do as you’re told. When the film resolves, and Dr. Grant comes around to the idea of having kids, this resolution comes in the form of a boring glance exchanged by the doctor couple- no physical contact until the proper documents are written up and notarized.

 Twenty years later, modern Feminism is no longer the same asexual rhetoric bent on equality. All but the most sexually potent of men have been tamed, and the rest exist to dutifully roll out the red carpet for Princess Entitled. The world is constructed as a safe space to protect her feelings and empower her promiscuity; so, of course, the modern Hollywood blockbuster is for girls.

 

The point of “Jurassic World” (2015) isn’t the inherently destructive nature of male sexuality, but the idea that women must dictate where and when male sexuality is acceptable. Take the film’s beta-male character: a doofus, sitting at a computer, literally wearing a “Jurassic Park” t-shirt, as if the film is pausing mid-stream to say, “does this look like you, faggot?”

In what must only amount to a few minutes of screen time, this guy is not only sexually rejected by his equally awkward looking co-worker, but shamed for his lack of masculinity by the film’s female lead. Unlike in “Jurassic Park,” where male sexuality is permissible when it’s directly useful, the message is rather different for the slob in the kids t-shirt: go kill yourself, you’re a loser.

The film’s impossibly Alpha, ex-Navy, exceedingly handsome, fearless Velociraptor wrangling male-lead, Owen Grady- played by impossibly handsome, etc.etc.etc., Chris Pratt- is a carefree loner as the film opens. When he’s not training dinosaurs, he’s fixing motorcycles. Obviously. And it’s quickly revealed that Grady tried to date the stiff, Feminist career women- female lead, Claire Dearing- who rejected him for wearing shorts on their date. High five, ladies- for all the sexy men who left you cold after only a few scant minutes in a bathroom stall, you won this one. Dearing is played by the only marginally attractive Bryce Dallas Howard, which is another modern Hollywood trope: average is the new beautiful. Fay Wray she isn’t.

While I’d certainly rather be hot-as-fuck Grady over the gross, nameless masturbator in the “Jurassic Park” t-shirt, both characters share more in common than you’d think; they each exist for strong independent Dearing. While the masturbator only serves to bolster her ego in his emasculation, Grady exists as accessible Alpha male sexuality on Dearing’s terms.

vlcsnap-2016-07-06-17h29m51s994

When the two finally get together romantically, it is presented as the height of unreality. It isn’t Dearing’s own sexual viability, nor a display of her femininity, that attracts Grady but when she grabs a big fucking gun and blasts a rabid dinosaur off of him that he finally pulls her in for a kiss. What sealed the deal for Grady, and made Dearing irresistible, was her strength– not her aesthetics, nor sexual presence, nor a submission to his masculinity. This way Dearing can have her cake and eat it too, because we all know that the strongest women always get the hottest men… or something.

“King Kong” is charmingly straight forward in its balance of fantasy and reality, certainly a product of its time- giant apes and dinosaurs as unreality, and traditional heterosexual romance as the necessary grounding of reality. “Jurassic Park” and “Jurassic World” attempt to shape the narrative- sadly a product of alternate-1985; where the reality of male sexuality is either neutered for utility or made to exist solely for the benefit of women- certainly the sad reality of modern expectations.

Follow me on Twitter @ KillToParty

New to KTP? Check out an assortment of my hand-picked “BEST OF” material.

Like my post? I accept Bitcoin tips via ChangeTip @ killtoparty.tip.me/

Advertisements

8 comments

  1. Matthew Hurwitz · July 7, 2016

    Don’t forget the classic exchange about Dinosaurs destroy man, woman inherits the Earth. I remember that getting a big round of chuckles and woos all five times I saw the film as a kid. I dare say I even laughed along with them. Today, the cringe is painful.

    • Spielberg has a real hard-on for masculinity. Guess he forgot who killed the giant shark.

      • Matthew Hurwitz · July 7, 2016

        Oh dude, Quint is given the worst death for being the biggest alpha while Hooper is the likable one and Brody only gets the kill shot because it’s still 1975. I hate to get all (((parenthetical))) because look at my last name, but between that and Jeff Goldblum being the stud of JP1 and the star of JP2 it seems like Spielberg was attempting to construct some new model of nerdy Jewish leading man on the grave of the 80s.

      • Goldblum being the stud of Jurassic Park is what inspired this post! Such a deliberate move by Spielberg; it over-shadowed the rest of the movie for me on this past viewing!

  2. Pingback: Amber Waves: Female Sexuality and “Boogie Nights” (1997) | Kill to Party
  3. nickbsteves · July 12, 2016

    In 1936, the monsters were really fake, but the sex(ual difference) was real. In 1996ff., the monsters were super realistic but the sex was fake.

  4. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/07/10) - Social Matter
  5. Robert Neville, M.D. · October 24

    An extra layer of interpretation for this superb, insightful post:

    Spielberg’s self-promotion and talent thrust him to alpha status but he is a beta nerd at heart, often surrounded by natural alphas yet perpetually unable to interpret reasons for their social success. Michael Crichton (Spielberg met him in 1969) and particularly super-tycoon Steve Ross are two such influences on Spielberg’s notion of masculinity.

    Ross – cultured, charismatic, self-made – was the most profound alpha paragon in Spielberg’s transition from 1941 man-child to Schindler’s List adult. Liam Neeson doesn’t play Oskar Schindler, he plays ROSS. All post-1983 depictions of Spielbergian alpha manhood owe debts to Ross (a socially-Left, fiscally-Right Jew who married two gentile women and had Kissinger on speed dial). Ross remains Spielberg’s own template for masculinity.

    Crichton, alternatively, was a 6’10, political conservative whom Spielberg held in awe for his protean genius. Spielberg seems fascinated by – and associates with – some alpha conservatives, like John Milius and Clint Eastwood.

    The object here is Ian Malcolm. Spielberg inherits Crichton’s creation: a Scots-American (like Crichton) intellectual bull-in-a-china shop. Skeptic, rebel, creative, confident. Malcolm is, of course, Crichton’s avatar.

    Like Quint, Indiana Jones or Frank Abignale, Spielberg is drawn to Malcolm’s attributes but never understands them. He cannot resist projecting HIMSELF onto Malcolm as wish-fulfillment through the casting of Goldblum. In the post-Ross era, Richard Dreyfuss failed as Spielberg’s avatar (c.f. Always). Only Goldblum can make a Hebraic Malcolm: Crichton’s brilliance and height are amalgamated with Ross’s wit and charisma, and Spielberg’s loquacious nerdiness.

    My point is that Goldblum’s Malcolm is not icky. He’s a legitimate AMOG interloper, based on real men. Physically imposing, funny, unpredictable, a step ahead. Neither Crichton, Ross, Goldblum, nor Malcolm would have (amongst other things) any trouble bedding a parade of attractive women. It is the Spielbergian traits that makes him appear icky (to men, not women). Looks? Only one part of the female desire metric.

    In truth, I suspect Spielberg is bewildered in Jurassic Park. He doesn’t even realize how badly the alpha side character subverts the beta provider lead (who is kept around only for narrative utility). In Spielberg’s eyes, the afterthought of Grant “winning” Ellie is no lecture to men, but a legitimate VICTORY. But Malcolm is so compelling, he doesn’t CARE.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s