Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Welcome to AndrogyNation, where women are turned into feminist lackeys and start to comport themselves in ways that betray a venomous loathing of natural male desire. Exhibit A: Jennifer Lawrence post-locks:

Still smashable, but here she is from a bygone era with long hair:

499 out of 500 doctors of love agree… so much hotter.

Boycuts optimize the looks of vanishingly few women. The best you can say about a woman with short, cropped hair is that she looks almost as good as she does with long hair. Audrey Hepburn was a classic representative of the ingenue who looks impishly sexy with short hair. But long-haired photos of Audrey prove that she looked even better with her tresses out and about for a playful romp.

Given the near-universal preference of men for longer-haired women, it is then a mystery why women chop their hair off. Don’t women want to please men? They do, but cultural and sex ratio shifts can influence how weakly or strongly women feel the need to appease the sexual preferences of men.

The last period short hair styles were widely fashionable on women (as well as flapper dresses which concealed the female form) was the Roaring Twenties, a time of feminism, suffrage, intensified status striving, and growing wealth inequality. Sound familiar?

A social milieu in which protector and provider beta males economically fall behind, home and hearth become secondary considerations to riding the cock carousel, and status whoring among women reaches a crescendo is also a milieu wherein women don’t feel much need to look and behave in the demure feminine manner that is attractive to men. We are again ovaries deep in that androgynous America zeitgeist, one defined by masculinizing women and feminizing men. Expect it to get worse before it gets better (if it ever does).

Avowed feminists loathe male desire because most feminists are ugly and resent that they aren’t the objects of male desire. These loudmouthed bitterbitches drag normal women in their wake, and a general antipathy toward men and men’s sexual preferences, already pushed in motion by larger social forces, coalesces as malign media propaganda and institutional lunacy.

Read Full Post »

The careerist shrike is emblematic of social dissolution and sexual market atavism. Yet women have historically worked in some capacity, whether that was at home or in the fields. It’s a rare culture where the average woman lounges around all day while men and hand maidens provide her an endless stream of creature comforts.

The difference in this iteration of decivilization is the nature of the work occupying the energies and time of “modern” Western women (who are better categorized as premodern women aping the sub-Sahara African style of year-round female farming self-sustenance). “Working” women existed throughout European history, but the substance of their work and, more importantly, the people for whom they worked were markedly different than what we have now, distilled to its rotten essence in the manjawed, pulsing forehead-veined, tankgrrl lawyercunt.

A reader writes,

You said that “women are happier when they abide traditional sex roles.” That is very true, but most people do not know what the role of women was in unadulterated European society. Below is a link to The Moneychanger and his Wife, painted in 1539.

Notice the wife is working with her husband by making entries into the accounting book. Wives were usually expected to work in whatever trade the husband’s was. For example, a farmer’s wife did farming. This also included military ranks, for example the wife of an army count was a countess. Robert E. Lee’s wife was called “Mrs. General Lee.”

The wife was there to help her husband with his trade. Help would consist of cooking and making clothes so to free up his time, then any other time would be to work in that trade. In European civilization a husband and wife were considered partners. Often married couples would be hired as opposed to individuals. Ever notice the Queen sat next to the King?

Good point. Historians in the CH audience can attest to how widespread was the practice of European partnership-style marriage, where the wife’s role was employee to her husband-boss.

What the reader describes is a superior form of social system that redirects the natural female (of which “wife” is a subset) hypergamous instinct toward, instead of against, her husband. The working European woman of 1539 was working for her husband. Her lover and her comfort and her family was also her boss. In this arrangement it would be hard for her not to look up to him, and to admire him, and this admiration would translate quite easily into happy sexual submission. Her instinctual compulsion to surrender to a better man would be sated, and her marriage would thus be stronger.

What we have today is that same working-woman hypergamy now directed to powerful men who are not her husband. The modern wife leaves the world of her husband every morning to submit to sexy male rulers presiding over the parallel world she inhabits during the day. She still has a boss, but it’s no longer her husband. The temptation for her to cheat, either bodily or in mind, must be great. The male equivalent would be as if dutiful husbands were catered to on the job by a steady stream of swimsuit models. Even the firmest virtue will bend to perpetual succulent vice.

This is why I argue that feminist-inspired, female-aggrandizing public policies should be repealed. “Pro-woman” (aka pro-r-selection) policies like Title IX and mandated maternity leave create perverse incentives for a sub-Saharan female-forager style social system that channels natural female hypergamy toward company men and away from family men. Men — particularly men with little experience bedding women — have a hard time understanding this primal craving of women for higher status mates, because men don’t give a fig about female status. To help focus minds, recall what you as a man feel when a beautiful young woman poured into a slinky cocktail dress sits close to you and smiles. That’s what women feel in the presence of powerful male bosses commanding them to do their bidding.

Starting to feel a little nervous kissing your wife goodbye as she heads to work in the morning? You should. She’s doing something that most of her female ancestors never did.

Read Full Post »

A survey of 670 North American white collar workers revealed who is the unhappiest (and happiest) of them all.

According to the survey, the happiest workers are:

  • Male
  • 39 years old
  • Married
  • Have a household income between $150,000 and $200,000
  • Hold a senior management position
  • Have one young child at home
  • Have a wife who works part-time

while the unhappiest workers are:

  • Female
  • 42 years old
  • Unmarried
  • Have a household income under $100,000
  • Work in a professional position (i.e., as a doctor or a lawyer).

What we have here… is failure to assimilate to the feminist utopia. Some women you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here these past 60 years, which is the way ugly bitter feminists want it… well, they get it. Careerist gogrrl spinsters who go to sleep and wake every morning with a shiver of doom running down their necks. Unhappy 130IQ cat ladies as far as the eye can see, staining their graduate degrees with hot tears.

I don’t like it any more than you men, but I will leverage it for my personal gain.

Blame flies in all directions, but the most obvious one. The Bitches of Feastdick whine that their feminist droids are unhappy because men aren’t picking up the slack in the domestic sphere. Androgyne, Inc. stockholders say that women worry more about the home life and we need to help them worry less by mandating various stay-at-office motherhood initiatives, like on-site daycare.

They flail and they flog their plush lush lies that protect them from the stone cold truth… the truth that is incontestable and harmonious and rooted in eons of evolutionary blueprint:

Men and women are happier when they abide traditional sex roles.

Reject biology, feel unhappy. It’s that simple. Work within the contours of your sex’s biology, and you will feel like a finely tuned instrument discarding cacophony and alighting upon melodious serenity.

Read Full Post »

An article by a Mzzz Pamela Clark has been making the memetic rounds. It’s titled “35 Practical Steps Men Can Take to Guarantee Involuntary Celibacy Support Feminism”. It is as vapid as you’d think it would be, just going by the lede. Excerpt:

12. Pay attention to and challenge informal instances of gender role enforcement.

For example, if you are at a family function or dinner party, pay attention to whether it is mostly/only women who are doing food preparation/cleaning/childcare while men are socializing and relaxing. If it is, change the dynamic and implore other men to do the same.

If you want to make yourself utterly sexually repellent to women who count, and a pariah among your cool male friends, sure go ahead and follow her advice.

The spectacle of these feminists one-upping each others’ stupidity and flights of fantastical voyage from reality seems to be exponentially increasing in absurdity and frequency lately. Why?

The answer is simple. Feminism is the limbic pain of ugly women getting amplified through the internet bullhorn.

Here’s a pic of the female who wrote the above article. WNB with John Scalzi’s thimblepeen.

When ugly bitter women meet the ASCII soapbox, Freudian hilarity ensues. You can set your watch to the accuracy of the CH feminism formulation. Nine times out of ten, when you see a photo of the female who wrote this or that feminist treatise aka foray into poopytalk, she will be fat, ugly, or an incomplete gender morph.

And that is the structural Götterdämmerung from which there is no semantic escape.

Read Full Post »

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

CH wrote the above not long ago to describe the purpose, in practice if not specifically elucidated in theory, of feminism. But what is the emotional impetus that motivates feminists? For that, we must dig deeper. Come out and plaaay, little id.

One, feminism is a hissy fit ugly women menstruate all over pretty women.

According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

Two, feminism is the revealed hatred that sexually undesirable women have for male sexuality. Feminists loathe male desire. They loathe it because it represents everything female sexuality is not — free, idealistic, romantic, reckless, unencumbered, insistent, bold, cheerful — and because the active and intrusive and JUDGMENTAL nature of male sexuality throws the physical desirability of women into stark relief. When a man ignores you to hit on your friend, that is as stone cold a judgment of your sexual worth as can be found in the state of nature. When a man can’t get a boner for a woman, well, that’s an event horizon rejection.

Evidence for feminist loathing of male desire comes distilled in this news story about a post-Lolita who was asked to change out of her Daisy Dukes because she was violating the school dress code. The Hivemind, as per usual, lined up behind (heh) the slutty attention whore to, essentially, denounce boys for having sex drives which compel them to furtively glance at barely concealed booty and get distracted from their schoolwork.

As commenter PA writes,

High school girl protests slutty clothes uniform code. Says that boys should be instructed to not look to them sexually instead. Adults, including major media, validate girl’s queef.

The more I see of modern West in its ugly and moronic totality, the more life behind the Iron Curtain in the seventies looked like paradise in comparison.

A healthy, rational, and sane society that was at peace with itself would understand that men and women have different biologically based sex drives, and that it would be cruel to subject boys, or girls, to social disruptions and insults that unnecessarily and extravagantly torment them and pull them away from their learning. (CH PSA: Bring back single sex schooling.)

But we don’t live in a sane country anymore. This sort of boy-bashing is not just ugly…. as Dalrymple said, it’s humiliating. If you aren’t on your knees in prostration kissing the feet of equalist priestesses, you just aren’t submitting hard enough.

To compound the problem, the nature of men’s sexuality is such that it’s easier for leftoid propagandists to humiliate them. Men rely on visual cues for sexual stimulation. It’s thus a simple matter to chastise men for their “leering objectification” and “contribution to rape culture” when they understandably gawk at scantily clad temptresses, and to then demand from men the Danegeld of self-abnegation. Call it the Danegelding.

But demanding the same humiliating abnegation from women, should our Hivemind queen bitches ever contemplate it, proves much more daunting. Women are sexually stimulated by a constellation of male attributes, many of which are invisible to the naked eye — male personality, humor, wealth, popularity, skill, etc — so isolating and condemning “female sexual privilege” or female “contribution to hypergamy culture” is a conveniently impossible trick to pull off. Where to aim? At doe-eyed girls doing the homework of dreamy jerkboys?

A sex equivalent scenario would be hard to piece together. Perhaps air drop a rock star into a high school classroom and tell the girls on threat of expulsion to refrain from gawking at him or giggling uncontrollably when he smiles? Crisis and observation, a wag might call it. Or, what’s good for the goose…

Look around and you can’t help but notice it’s feminist metaphorical guns at boys’ heads and groins, now and forever. And their firepower increases by the day.

The modern West deserves nothing less than exhaustion and death. Suffrage was a fucking huge mistake.

 

Read Full Post »

CH continues to explore the Elliot Rodger story because it reveals cracks in our culture that go beyond one man’s murderous rampage. In the days that have followed, the Hivemind has been busy concocting twisted narratives to see which one best tarnishes its free-thinking enemies. I examine their accuracies and fallacies below.

Sexual Entitlement

This theoretical gambit is a favorite of feminist fruitcakes, who blame the killings on Rodger’s thwarted “entitled” belief that he was “owed” sex with hard 10s, a feminist-friendly analysis that provides a handy springboard upon which they can launch into attacks on “pickup artists” who are learning how to become sexier men in order to date higher quality girls.

The fallacy in this feminist hypothesis was astutely noted by Liger (recently upgraded from Lamb) of the Blogosphere, who wrote that sexual and romantic entitlement is a natural condition of humanity, and that without it men would feel they had no right to approach women and initiate a courtship, and the human race would go extinct.

Here are some uncomfortable truths about “sexual entitlement” that feminists dare not contemplate:

- What Elliot Rodger had was sexual desire. Feminists often confuse sexual desire for sexual entitlement (because feminists loathe male desire), but they are two very different things. To conflate them, one would have to assert that Rodger was weird for feeling attracted to a hot young blonde. But men are attracted to beautiful women. That is their nature. Rodger was no different than the vast majority of men in this regard, alpha and beta alike. However, this is the part where Liger goes astray; Elliot didn’t need to be surrounded by pretty Hollywood actresses or steeped in a culture that reveres female beauty to feel urges to want to fuck cute girls based on their looks. The stripling CH did not grow up in Hollywood, and yet I, like almost every boy I knew, valued girls for their looks above all else. No “looks message” is necessary for a boy like Elliot to feel sexual urges for cute chicks, and to feel dejected if those urges aren’t fulfilled.

- Women feel more true entitlement to men’s commitment and money than men feel to women’s sex. Few men will rape in order to feed their sexual entitlement, but many women will hold out until they get promises of commitment from men, and many marriages end with women feeling entitled to half their husbands’ wealth. A more accurate description of the sexual market, then, is that women have commitment and provision entitlement.

- Finally, the scariest realization for feminists: Sexually entitled men are more attractive to women! If you don’t feel entitled to a woman’s love, she won’t think you’re worth her love.

Elliot Rodger’s problem was not sexual entitlement. His problem was sexual desire coupled with crippling introversion that left him no means to satisfy his desire. This created a cognitive disconnect that he filled with his own untested theories for why women weren’t with him when they were with (to him) obviously inferior specimens.

Father Emotional Abandonment

Elliot Rodger’s father, Peter Rodger, from all accounts sounds like he was uninterested in Elliot’s upbringing and preferred his time in the company of naked women taking pictures of their behinds, (which included Elliot’s mother). His father either never loved Elliot, or grew to despise him when he began to sense something was off with the boy. (If the former, it’s likely that Elliot’s biracial appearance contributed to his white father’s disenchantment with him.)

Bolstering the father abandonment theory, a reader sent some juicy insider information which I will post here, taking care to edit it in a circumspect manner so that no identities are accidentally revealed.

Elliot Rodger’s family has been part of a reality show the last seven years often recorded in his house. This is significant because his father on the show has always said he has “a” son, as in only one. In this video from the TV show it shows the father at the family table with the son from the second marriage, but not Elliot.

Elliot is shown in the show, for example when they met Sylvester Stallone (23:50), but Elliot is never acknowledged or speaks. Imagine a father that has a reality show in the house, keeps talking about “his son” and the “three of us” as in “Mother, Father, and son” as opposed to sons.

Elliot mentions the jealousy he has for the other brother. The fact his father says on TV, in the house Elliot lives in, that he has one son, might be enough to push someone over the edge.

In other words, complete family dysfunction.

Elliot doubtlessly sensed his father’s loathing and embarrassment of him, and this family dynamic may have set the ball rolling on Elliot’s eventual psychosocial schism.

Regardless where you fall on the “fathers are crucial/father’s genes are crucial” argument about children’s development, it’s a good bet Elliot lacked a positive parental influence and a loving father’s advice that would have helped him through his struggle into manhood. Nevertheless, the father emotional abandonment theory can’t fully explain Elliot’s eventual psychotic break; something awry already had to be present. Was Elliot’s blood tainted?

Psychopathy/Schizophrenia/Narcissism/Neuroticism/Asperger’s Syndrome

A common theme that often emerges from mass shootings is the revelation that the killer was on some kind of psychotropic or suffered from an anti-social disorder like autism. Then people say “Aha! He was a bad seed, not right in the head”, and feel satisfied that they can ignore any environmental insults that may have triggered the killer’s rage.

News stories present contradicting information on how much, or whether, Elliot was on any happy pills or had been formally diagnosed with any personality disorder. If he was on pills, the causal mechanism then becomes the issue; did Elliot’s psychological disease push him over the edge, or did the drugs he take to ameliorate his disease act as the trigger for violence? Evidence is slim that Elliot had a congenital mental disease, but this photo of him as a child is telling (via reader Tony Nick):

Dem eyes. We’ve seen them before, staring vacantly out of the faces of Dylan Kliebold and Seung-Hui Cho.

Right now it’s a guessing game, but the best guess is that Elliot Rodger had inherited a form of narcissistic and anti-social personality disorder. Some wags may ask your esteemed host, “If chicks dig dark triad narcissists, why didn’t they dig Elliot?” The problem here is that narcissism doesn’t attract girls if it’s hiding behind a shy, retiring, aggrieved personality. You’ve gotta bust a move, and Elliot Rodger clearly never saw a move he wished to bust, unless it involved spilling coffee on a girl who was dating a guy he didn’t like.

A severe organic personality disorder alone won’t typically create a killer, but combine it with some external variable — like incel — and all the bomb needs is something to light the fuse.

Male Feminism/White Knightism

A good argument can be made that Elliot Rodger was, in his writings and beliefs, a male feminist. And that the cancerous, deceitful message of male feminism warped his view of women and contributed to his ignorance about female nature and dating. Rodger believed “supreme gentlemen” should get the girls. He thought merely showing up and plopping down on a park bench would have the girls falling into his lap (and like a peculiar subspecies of MGTOW, his belief system similarly embraced the strange notion that making efforts to get girls was beneath him). His dad, probably equally deluded about women and dating in the year 2014, figured that buying his son a BMW in the last year of his life would help him get dates.

Did male feminism create a monster? It certainly didn’t help Elliot get laid; in fact, it helped repulse girls from him, the external factor which seems to have been the dark driving force throughout his post-pubertal life. Male feminism is not just castrating, it kills. Ask Hugo Schwyzer.

Status Envy

In the Hollywood culture Elliot knew, very high status men, beautiful women and botoxed women, and snotty children of high status men and beautiful and/or botoxed women surrounded him. Most of these people are entitled (far more entitled than Elliot) and bipolar. A fun bunch to throw a party, not so great for raising a biracial, effeminate (though not physically unattractive) male like Elliot who couldn’t look people in the eyes and barely spoke two words to family acquaintances. In this milieu, Elliot would have felt like a tragic outcast, and everyone who knew him would have thought that, too.

Absolute low status does not destroy souls, but relative low status can do the trick. Any other town, Elliot might’ve stood a chance of carving out a social niche for himself. A dad with some awareness and compassion would have taken him out of Hollywood, but then that would have meant no more naked photo shoots and handshakes with Sly Stallone.

The Anti-Boy Therapy Culture

Elliot’s family had him in therapy for years. The psychiatrist he saw was a quack who dated a skank blonde with gargantuan fake tits. Harken back to your childhood. How would you have felt if your family basically pulled a Pontius Pilate and washed their hands of you, sending you to a sleazeball who’s idea of therapy was promptly writing a script for Risperidone, an anti-schizophrenia drug?

This is a tragic example of the anti-boy therapy culture that pervades the US. And by “therapy”, I mean that feminized, womanish therapy that shoves pills down throats to solve the problem of boyness. Maybe Elliot was born sick and needed therapy. But what he didn’t need was a castrate asking him his feelings about his mother while he jerked off under the desk. Elliot needed the therapy of a clear and present father to inform him of the ways of the world. Maybe that wouldn’t have saved him, but it at least would’ve given him a fighting chance.

Pickup Artists and PUAHate

Elliot Rodger didn’t frequent the PUAHate forum to grouse about pickup techniques he tried that didn’t land him a bombshell hottie. He went there to bemoan women and the men those women loved with sympathetic company, and to complain about his looks. While there, (and elsewhere), he picked up (heh) a few bits and pieces of PUA jargon and proceeded to construct an inner fantasy world featuring himself as the put-upon alpha male. But, sadly, to the outside world he was still that shy kid who never talked and looked at his shoes. This was about the time when a complete dissociation between Elliot’s inner world and his outer reality was underway.

The Estrangement Of The Modern Sexual Market

If ever there was a subculture where the modern sexual market was most conspicuously operable, it was the la-la land Elliot grew up in. You can imagine what it was like for a shy kid who had to navigate a dating apocalypse where 90% of the girls were bangable and 99% of them were chasing after the top 1% sons of A-list insiders. This poor lesser beta didn’t stand a chance.

Elliot Rodger’s 132-page autobiography/manifesto (autofesto? manigraphy?) is filled with brutally confessional admissions of loserdom. If he carried even a fraction of that self-pity with him to real life interactions with girls, they would have immediately written him off as a romantic prospect. Girls can smell the stink of beta incel from twelve parsecs.

Failure with women compounds until the beta male succumbs to bitterness, at which point the process of sexual isolation accelerates and solidifies. If an intervention goes missing, the beta can drift into omegaland, and fall victim to his worst compulsions.

Reader Steve Johnson writes,

He was totally isolated because he made bad choices.

He chose world of warcraft over socializing because it’s an effective narcotic.

He chose puahate because it told him what he wanted to hear – that girls choose guys for mysterious reasons that no man can understand – or change about himself.

He specifically avoided socializing in any way that would threaten his narcissistic self-image and motivate him to change in any way – after all if he has to change, then he’s not perfect and we all know that can’t be true, right?

He was omega by choice because it was easier than doing any work.

Martyrdom complex, bad family, crippling shyness, pathological narcissism, biracial neuroticism, unfulfilled sexual desire, a sexual market rapidly separating introverted beta males from the sexual spoils… these things put together don’t guarantee a man will become a killer, but they sure don’t help.

Read Full Post »

The self-gratifying meme that feminists have begun to lock labia around to exploit explain Elliot Rodger’s killing spree is exemplified in this American Prospect stream of runny shit by Amanda Marcotte, she of the furry manjaw and associated masculine temperament. The meme, a rather simple-minded one, goes like this: “Pickup artistry, loosely affiliated with the manosphere, drives men to kill.”

Other unattractive feminists who have spent many years playing second banana to their prettier friends getting all the attention from exciting players are circling the wagons around this kindergarten interpretation.

Marcuntte’s libelous propaganda rests on a singularly false premise. She lies,

Despite PUA guarantees to the contrary, there’s no reason to believe any of this actually makes you more successful with women, which is why a site called PUAhate, which Rodgers was a frequent contributor to, emerged. Members of PUAhate, by and large, are men who bought wholesale into the PUA ideology, only to find it doesn’t work for them.

You’ll never go broke underestimating the rapidity with which feminist warthogs abandon journalistic integrity in pursuit of a predefined agenda. PUAHate was not filled with men who “bought wholesale into the PUA ideology”. Quite the contrary, if this raving cuntess had spent one minute trawling the site she’d know that it was filled with shut-in losers who never followed PUA advice and nursed an inordinate hatred for PUA marketers whom they considered, rightly or wrongly, were pushing snake oil.

If Marcuntte were to concede this point, the entire edifice of her Prospect article crumbles to the ground. That’s why she lies. Without lies, these feminist freaks would have nothing.

In related shivving, I wonder how Manboobz, nee David Futrelle, feels about having happily linked to a website that harbored a mass murderer and fed his despair and homicidal tendencies? The blood of four men and two women are on his hands.*

*If femcunts and their blobby male lackeys want to dispense with any pretense of objectivity and get in the gutter, I’ll be the first to open the sewer doors and toss them in with the rats and pigs.

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer links to Ann Hornaday’s Washington Post article where she attempts, in the typical square axe-round hole grinding feminist fashion, to blame Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree on “frat boy” movies made by white men.

The premise is so conspicuously self-refuting (and conveniently unfalsifiable) that Steve decides a pregnant “uh…” is all the rebuttal that’s needed. The first commenter, though, adds a little zest to the national discourse.

But Ann, what about a film like “Something’s Gotta Give,” where 50-ish women with no curves are told the hot young doctor’s going to fall in love with them? Is it possible that when this doesn’t happen in real life, women act out by supporting all manner of political causes inimical to the interests of the straight white men who spurn them? Hmmm?

Shiv status: To the bone.

Another commenter unsheathed his serrated blade and attacked her vulnerable anti-white status whoring flank.

So…start with a conclusion (White males are to blame) and then fill in behind it.

Soon we can mechanize/computerize this process and save some wage cost. The out of work pundits can then pick lettuce and eat beans.

We can dream.

Steve is a nice guy, and quite frankly the developed world needs more fearless nice guys like him who appear to be getting rarer by the day. But, I’m not a nice guy, so I’ll give Hornaday the reply she deserves.

Ann, you are a foul, despicable feminist cunt. Your ideology is the stale, safe haven of rejects, defectives, losers, race cuckolds, dweebs, and sexually confused degenerate freaks. Your time is over. Hope this hurts.

Read Full Post »

the cat gives me tingles.

She sounds relieved that there’s finally an alpha male in her marriage to whom she can submit. The job was apparently open…

Woman up front, man in back, just the way she likes it.

Read Full Post »

“i’m biased against PIV”

The Germans have a word (the Germans always have a word) for “a punchable face”: Backpfeifengesicht.

Why do these male feminists all look the same? Is there a factory that shits out bald, pale, pencil-necked, peach-fuzzed, brony fluffers who were born with full diapers?

Self-flagellation is nothing new for the pillow biter set, but one wonders how effective the male feminism pose is as a mating strategy. Assuming the androgyne above isn’t a bottom, he must cop this degrading attitude on some level to score flabby feminist poon. It’s either an evolved behavioral strategy that works juuust often enough to prevent it from being culled from the male population, or, like open borders race cuckoldry, it’s a maladaptive expression of a genetic trait that may have been useful a long time ago in a different sexual environment when the steppe thundered with brazen misogynists and the sensitive man had some relative value to women.

Regardless, the male feminist strategy sucks for attracting cute girls unless you have compensating attributes like charm or social status.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,970 other followers

%d bloggers like this: