You can't always get what you want

So according to Dilbert author and bonafide asshole Scott Adams, men are a bunch of square pegs forced to hammer out a miserable and unhappy existence in a round hold society.* I was going to write a coherent rebuttal, but fuck that. Adams' piece of shit blog post makes absolutely no sense and barely follows its own line of argumentation, so why should I?

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes.

According to Adams, the "natural instincts" of men are to shag anything that moves and tweet pictures of their junk. I personally think that's a bit insulting to men, as I know many guys who seem to be pretty happy with their lives without taking pictures of their penises and sending them to every woman they know. But maybe he's just referring to the idea of having an active sex drive in general. In which case, stop assuming that women don't have sex drives, you asshole. We do. Women also take pictures of their boobs and text them to people. Not that I'm saying that makes it a necessarily good decision, but it happens. Stop acting like men are the only people who want to have sex and that they're somehow oppressed because it's not socially acceptable to stick your dick in someone every time you get a boner.

All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness.

Oh yeah, not getting what you want instantly all the time = unhappiness. The reason you can't always get what you want is OH GOD WHY AM I EXPLAINING THIS GROW THE FUCK UP. Even Mick Jagger understands this. Jesus fucking Christ.

Consider Hugh Hefner. He had every benefit of being a single man, and yet he decided he needed to try marriage. Marriage didn’t work out, so he tried the single life again. That didn’t work out, so he planned to get married again, although reportedly the wedding just got called off. For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.

Wait, so if hiring a house full of women to be your harem (I'm not sure if that's actually how it works, but basically he is surrounded by beautiful women all day and I think he has the option to sleep with many of then? I don't know) doesn't count as fulfilling a man's natural instincts (as Scott Adams defines them), and neither does getting married and having one woman that you can constantly have sex with (not that this should be how marriage works, but I'm trying to understand Adams' logic here), then what the fuck? I don't see how this example makes any sort of sense according to the previous argument. What would another option be? If his argument is that society is constricting Hugh Hefner to choose between these two terribly oppressive** lifestyles, isn't his argument invalidated by the fact that Hefner's "single lifestyle" is outside the societal mainstream?

Maybe Adams doesn't get laid enough ever and therefore is completely miserable all the time, but I think it's acceptable to expect men (and women) to keep their sex drives under a certain amount of control, and also expect that mature adults can find happiness in things other than sex.

*Insert penis joke here
**Again, Adams' opinion, not mine