The Sad Squeaks Of An Aging Starlet’s Rationalization Hamster Spinning Its Final Wheel

Sharon Stone is a long way from her star turn in the movie Basic Instinct as a femme fatale who flashes her vaj during an interrogation. Thirty years on, paying audiences don’t want to see her vagina anymore. And, if the bitterness and sour grapes that drip from this recent interview with Stone are any indication, not many quality men in her real life want to see her vagina either.

After two divorces and decades in the business, Sharon Stone isn’t looking for a casual romance.

How convenient.

The 58-year-old actress opened up to AARP magazine about the effects of aging on both her personal and professional life.

“Obviously it’s pretty easy to get a date,” she said. “But to me, my life is so full. I don’t want to take time out to just go on a date, or to just have sex with a stranger.”

Translating from the hamsterese: “There’s a whole world between ‘sex with a stranger’ and involuntary solitude, but I can’t access it because obviously it’s pretty hard to get a date with a man who doesn’t eat his own boogers as a woman over 50.”

“At this point, I get more satisfaction – physically, spiritually, emotionally – from a smile, a laugh, a warm conversation or a really sexy look,” she told the magazine. “You know the way a man can look at you? Where you know he really sees you? I don’t want to be with someone unless it’s like that.”

The above is what age-related low libido looks like in words.

The aging beauty claims to seek romantic perfection as an ego emollient to avoid the crushing reality that imperfect romance isn’t even an option for her anymore.

Why pick on Sharon? Isn’t her personal torment enough punishment? The problem is that, unlike most aging women who must nurse their fantasies and shill their platitudes in private or to a small audience of immediate family and close friends who know better, Stone has a public platform to spread her lies to impressionable younger women who can’t see through the bravado to the sexual market rejection hurt underneath. At the margins, some younger women could be convinced, to their detriment, by Stone’s false pride that playing the field until late middle age is a viable route to life happiness, instead of what it really will be: a big mistake.

Making an example of Stone is a lesson for the others to avoid the same lonely fate. Prime fertility women need to know with the utmost seriousness that it will NOT be easy for them to get a date at age 58, with ANY man, and an old lady saying otherwise is blowing smoke up their skirts. Platitudes are cute when no one really believes them, but they’re downright malevolent when asserted with righteous authority as truth.

Read Full Post »

Upgrayyed

Tell me Michelle doesn’t look like she’s checked out of her marriage.

president Gay Mulatto, as per usual, sits in the Supreme Gentlefag position. Does he see what’s going on? That face he’s making says he does, and doesn’t care. Their marriage is a loveless sham. Was the Presidency worth it?

Read Full Post »

Civilizational Death Dance

Brannon asks what could be the burning question of the century:

How could an entire generation get so cucked to give their entire nation & values away like this.

He links to an outstanding comment that should be retired to the Realtalk Hall of Flame. The comment was to an article written by @NickCohen4 (which I can’t locate atm; if any reader would care to do the legwork, I’d appreciate it).

The White West — we, us — is really in uncharted territory, which means this experiment in self-annihilation signaling has the potential to go very, very wrong. “Civilizational death dance” captures the dispirit of our times: a reckless gambling with our nation’s posterity for the fleeting pleasure of moral preening. The fundament rends… or rather, prolapses.

Read Full Post »

The Leftoid Mind (Or What’s Left Of It After The Cognitive Dissonance)

A characteristic shitlib comment to a Washington Post-Op story about the alt-right’s adoption of Taylor Swift as an Aryan Goddess.

Using DNA, one can get hints of where one’s ancestors may have lived. The test conclusions are based on correlations with the location of modern populations and can help with the study of human migration patterns. The tests say nothing about “race”.

Forensic Anthropology can provide a guess as to ancestry (a term they have chosen to avoid reinforcing the idea of “race’) that is purely statistical and depends on knowledge of where the remains were found. This is often coupled with sociological concepts of “race”.

Caveat: This may be a too-clever-by-half troll of race creationist leftoids. But probably not. It reads like sincere shitlibbery.

What is it with lunatic libs and their pathological compulsion to deny the reality of race? “Red” and “blue” are social constructs to describe real world differences in colors, but that doesn’t mean the visible light spectrum is imaginary or a tool of the oppressive White patriarchy. All words are literally social constructs — labels created by social humans — to describe real world phenomena. Leftoids can call it “ancestry”, “population locations”, “human migration patterns” or “geography-based groups” that “correlate” with “sociological concepts of race”, but it’s all just legerdemain-slash-poopytalk meaning the same as race.

You hear the same semantic games when leftoids attempt to discredit race by pointing to the existence of mulattoes. “No clear dividing line” is piss-poor logic if the purpose is to disprove the concept of categories. There’s no clear dividing line between deserts and grasslands, and yet everyone can see that both terrains exist on earth as distinctive entities.

I have a suggestion for leftoids allergic to the socially constructed word “race”: try these perspicuous alternatives instead:
breed
subspecies
stock.

Whatever dissembling term you use, you aren’t fooling anyone but yourselves. Race is real, and so is your sophistry.

Read Full Post »

More Evidence Supporting The “Men Invade, Women Invite” Theory Of Geopolitics

Female suffrage was a big mistake, part infinity in a series.

Austria had an election recently, pitting a nationalist, immigration restrictionist patriot (Hofer) against a globalist, open borders nutjob (Van der Bellen). The vote results confirm a pattern seen all over the Western world: White women are voting in the shitlib traitors who will drown White nations in a polluted sea of third world misery.

Men invade, women invite. Right now, White women — especially over-educated White women — have the West’s power structures by the balls, gleefully cutting them off and handing them to migrants, invaders, refugees and general admission Diversity for display in their conquerors’ trophy cases. White men have responded by… well, until the Trumpening struck fear in the hearts of the West’s enemies, throwing up their hands and retreating to pr0n, opioids, and video games.

Trump is the West’s last, best, chance to turn this thing around. If TheCunt wins, it’s GAME OVER for America as we have known her.

Read Full Post »

Shiv Of The Week: Choices And Consequences

A reader worthy of wielding the obsidian Chateau shiv sends a screen cap of his Tinder response to a single mom-by-choice. The lols are strong (and frequent) in this one. (Reader’s Twatter handle is @FUSigma.)

How to teach cause-and-effect to Millennial Tinderellas & impose sanctions on single mommery:

(It’s especially effective if it’s done immediately, so that the reason is obvious.)

A few thoughts:

First, this reader’s Game, however little of it he revealed here, is tight. He promptly starts off with a qualifying question, to which the single-mom-by-choice eagerly feels the urge to defend her skankly honor. The quickest seductions occur when the woman is thrown back in the defensive crouch. In fact, the line “So how normal are you?” could legitimately serve as an effective, all-purpose opener. Don’t even bother with the “hi”, just stroll up and drop that hamster nuke at ground zero. It’ll get laughs from the cool, self-confident (read: thin and cute) women, and that’s practically the same as foreplay.

Second, I commend the sly follow-up leading question; not “are you divorced?” (which can trigger an offended rebuttal), but “how long have you been divorced?” This is assume-the-slut Game, and she couldn’t resist correcting his assumption.

Third, this woman is weaponized American Whore, marinated in decades of feminist cunt indoctrination. Her answer — “I’ve never been married lol” — indicates a confidence with, or an obliviousness to, how she’ll be received by men for admitting she shat out a bastard with a fly-by-night jerkboy. She thinks men will praise her. And why does she think men will praise her shitty life choices? Because she probably has experience on Tinder stringing along thirsty beta and omega pre-op Millennial males to treat her nicely and boost her ego major, in return for a fraction of the sex she lavished in one night on her sperm donor.

Fourth, notice all the “lol”s Alayna scatters throughout her banter. This is a tell-tale verbal tic that hints at the desperation and self-doubt lurking underneath her tough skank facade. Insincere LOLs are an attempt to coax intimacy, and a conversational bonding, that doesn’t yet exist. Beta males do it all the time (which is why  they fail). The scattershot LOL is also a ploy to distract someone from keying in on the LOLyer’s personal flaws (which in this case is the single mommery and Samsonite sprog).

Finally, my opinion is that the best message shiv to deliver single moms-by-choice is the pump-and-dump. Leading her on to get what you want out of her — a quick and dirty no muss no fuss lay while avoiding tripping over her kid’s toys on the way to the bedroom, and then ghosting — will leave bloodier stigmata on her soul than the curt “Unmatch”. The problem is that very few men can pull off this cold-hearted maneuver without getting physiologically attached to the pussy and returning repeatedly to that over-used well, because very few men are alpha males accustomed to living with the knowledge of endless sexual market options. Therefore, an alternative special lesson to teach the feminist-brainwashed squadrons of stupidly proud single moms is what FUSigma did here: the rhetorical pump-and-dump.

Read Full Post »

The Hidden Costs Of Dual Income Relationships

I’ve since lost the link to the original Voxday post, but this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

I’ve made similar points that working wives are 1) tempted to infidelity (physical or emotional) by close proximity to high status male bosses not their husbands in corporate environments, 2) men are less inclined to emotionally invest in, and therefore materially provide for, careerist women who are financially self-sufficient, and 3) marital egalitarianism kills sex lives dead.

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability —  helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read Full Post »