Recall the CH definition of feminism:
The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
The goal doesn’t have to be consciously intended for it to be operative. Most feminists aren’t thinking, “I want to enlarge the sphere of acceptable expressions of female sexuality and shrink the sphere of acceptable expressions of male sexuality.” But conscious awareness isn’t necessary for subconscious desires to percolate up through the prefrontal cortex and get rationalized as a moral crusade for an invisible sex inequality.
Taking their actions and their steady stream of contradictions at face value, it’s evident that feminists loathe male desire. How else to explain the facility with which feminists hold competing and incompatible worldviews in their frazzled hamster brains?
Vanity Fair had a very favorable write-up of Strayed in a recent issue and at one point states that Strayed “is a champion of promiscuity”.
In the very same issue, VF has a profile of Russell Brand, and gives us this gem:
Which brings us to a sticking point: for all his talk of prayerfulness and humility, there persists an image of Brand as a bounder and a cad. Does this compromise his credibility with women? I put this question to Suzanne Moore, a liberal, feminist columnist for The Guardian who is, in many respects, politically sympathetic to Brand. “It’s funny. I have a 13-year-old daughter, and she absolutely adores him—he seems designed for young people who are just getting into politics,” she said. “But he still has this history, no matter how much he cloaks his sexism—and I’ll call it sexism—in this new spiritual talk. He plays this double game, being very self-aware of his past misdeeds, but I don’t know how much respect he has or shows to women.”
Which begs the following: How would VF cover a Strayed-Brand hookup? Champion of Promiscuity Hooks Up with Misogynist Pig, seems about right.
The feminist schizophrenia in terms of liberated promiscuity coupled with our “rape culture” brings to mind that classic scene in Little Shop of Horrors with Steve Martin as the sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as his masochist patient.
Further proof, as if it was needed, that feminists and weak-minded women who chant along monotonically with their idiocy, really only have as their purpose the construction of a world where men are harangued and shamed for their natural male sexual desire and women are exalted for theirs. Thus, we get nonsense like relabeling skanks as “champions of promiscuity”.
Why do feminists want this world? Because most feminists are ugly, sexual marketplace losers who have to give away their putrid pussies for free to get any action, and they take out their resentment on men and on the normal women who love men as men and want to satisfy men in the way that only feminine women can.