Champion Of Promiscuity, Or Garden Variety Skank?

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.





Comments


  1. on December 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    I’m not convinced that all or even most feminists are ugly. But the ones that aren’t ugly are crazy, even by the standards of, well, feminists. UVA Jackie, for example, is actually pretty cute in the pictures I’ve seen.

    Like


  2. […] Champion Of Promiscuity, Or Garden Variety Skank? […]

    Like


  3. Ai, the bitches be crazy. But if you treat that duplicitious behaviour with the contempt it deserves with and unswerving consistancy then they change their tune quickly. They problem is there are still way to may suplicating Beta cheering them on.

    Like


  4. That is certainly a motivation for the hordes. But the leading feminists, the ones who started the thing, were Marxists. Many openly described themselves as such, and the rest quoted Marx and other Marxists in their work. The “gender studies” and other sociology propaganda includes Marxist theory and Marxist names. Feminism is definitely a tactic for dividing Western society and gain recruits for the clique that controls the Left.

    Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.”
    — Germaine Greer, Marxist, lecturer at the University of Sydney, lecturer at the University of Cambridge, columnist at The Sunday Times

    ”I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
    — Robin Morgan, Marxist, editor of MS Magazine

    ”Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.”
    — Valerie Solanas, feminist writer, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men), homosexual, Marxist, would-be murderer of Andy Warhol

    “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one and the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”
    Catherine MacKinnon, professor of law at the University of Michigan, visiting professor of law at Harvard

    “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole … patriarchy!”
    Gloria Steinem, columnist for the magazine New York, editor of MS magazine

    “If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal – a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students – I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment … of persuading students that women are oppressed”
    Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University

    Like


    • Communism and feminism are a Jewish attack on European civilization, which is really an attack on the safety and welfare of women and children.

      Like


      • on December 23, 2014 at 7:20 am Whomever Wherever

        Anonymous, in one single sentence, you have just encapsulated all of the Manosphere, the Dark Enlightement, and pretty much 100% of 20th Century world history.

        Like


      • “Ye are of your father, the Devil… and the lusts of your father you will do.”

        Saith the Lord, who is in a position to know.

        Anything which will ALSO destroy itself, taken to its logical conclusion, is the Big Tell of satanic origin and activity.

        Obviously, those looking to destroy Western Civilization are digging their own graves as well… yet they can’t swing the shovels quickly enough, because hate and envy motivate them beyond all else… exactly as Satan in the beginning, who wanted to be worshiped as if God.

        Even he realizes he’s done… but no remorse does he show, and no forgiveness does he seek… rather, all he wants to do is take everything and everyone down with him, in the grim satisfaction of a grand nose-thumb to the true God.

        That’s the nuclear level of hate we see in him… and in his minions on this planet.

        Like


    • on December 23, 2014 at 2:09 am MouammarCircus

      ”I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”
      – Robin Morgan, Marxist, editor of MS Magazine

      When someone sees women as a “class”, that person de facto exits Marxism, for which de dividing line is and will always be between the people who incarnate the logic of Capital, and those who endure it (one could still argue against Marx’ axioms).

      Reads to me as a some conceptual hamster rationalization of the highest order. The Rodent is obviously multi-skilled.

      Moreover, state-sponsored feminists who boast about taking the state down… L.O.L.

      @CH/ I’m intrigued: have you read Weininger’s book, Sex and Character?

      Like


  5. There are more attractive feminists too. The typical swpl type girl who thinks she has a right to easily advance in work settings seems to have a different motivation than sexual for being a feminist. More like a spoiled brat. But certainly the type of woman to get a gender studies degree and possibly become a sjw would have certain traits: dyed short hair, fat, generally unattractive. I know a girl who comes from a well known family my parents are acquainted with and she is tall, thin, very pretty, and wealthy and she chopped all her hair, dyed it gray, and became a drug using feminist for some reason. She even has a cat. I can’t for the life of me figure out why she did that. Certainly she could get some quality men.

    Like


  6. Meh, feminism is just the poster child of capitalism and consumerism. Give the control of money to the spenders instead of earners by stripping men of any ability to restrain their own women and progeny, whether physical or legal, and their assets are now ripe for looting.

    Vanity Fair and the rest are just enjoying the ride.

    Like


  7. Wild, based on Strayed’s story is now in theaters, for those who don’t know. Anyone reading this blog will easily recognize the familiar hamster-conceived delusions and contradictions of the modern American woman that drive the story’s plot.

    Here’s a quick summary of the plot:
    Daughter of single mom slut follows in mom’s footsteps. Marries a beta (they get matching tattoos on the day they get divorced) but then she bangs many bad boys on the side. Mom dies. She’s lost now because her role model is gone so she takes a long walk, continuing to bang strangers along the way. End of story.

    It’s a nauseating, uninteresting, banal story of your average-looking, average-behaving american woman. What pushes it over the top into the realm of ludicrousness is a) the fact that Reese Witherspoon, a feminine, petite, more traditionally pretty woman plays the lead character, who in real life is your typical masculine, man-jawed, corn-fed, uninhibited american slut. And, b) Her sluttiness is portrayed in the movie as if she was simply “going through a rough time”. Clearly she enjoyed getting banged by random dudes in back alleys, but they… um… downplay that part, for some reason.

    Go see it with a chick if want to do run some fake vulnerability game. Make your girl pay.

    Like


  8. how can a girl know if she is beautiful without asking people?

    Like


    • Observing mens reactions. If heads swivel, she’s pretty or hot.

      Like


      • and it will happen everytime everywhere or just in special occasions?

        also, I have seen plain girls turning heads and beautiful girls passing by unnoticed.

        Like


      • trollololol

        ps allow me to explain. you don’t see plain girls turning heads as much as beautiful girls turn heads, and you don’t really want an answer to your disingenuous question.

        Like


      • no, I am not trolling, my cousin is very beautiful and do not turn a lot of heads, and then there’s thi other girl who is more plain than her and she turns more heads than her. My cousin is tall, has blue eyes, looks like a model, the other girl is short, brown eyed and not attractive in my opinion but still turn more heads than my cousin.

        Like


      • no, I am not trolling, my cousin is very beautiful and do not turn a lot of heads, and then there’s thi other girl who is more plain than her and she turns more heads than her. My cousin is tall, has blue eyes, looks like a model, the other girl is short, brown eyed and not attractive in my opinion but still turn more heads than my cousin.

        Four options
        1. Your cousin isn’t as pretty as you think she is.
        2. You’re clueless and don’t notice the heads turning
        3. The brown eyed girl dresses sluttier
        4. You’re a liar

        Like


      • yes, my causin is very pretty as I think. People give her compliments everytime telling her that she is “sooooo beautiful” and that she looks like a movie star or a model. I have never seen the other girl being complimented. The brown eyed girl is like a 6,5 or 7 and my causin is like an 8,5 or more. Nobody was dressing like a slut because it was winter. And why would I notice the heads turning for one girl and not for the other? I am not clueless as you stated on option “2”. I am not a liar and I have seen the same thing happening with other girls too, the best looking one is not always the most noticed.

        Like


      • Well obviously the brown eyed girl must have a big rack. Am I really the first one to get it? You guys are slipping. Lol. 🙂

        Like


    • If you have to ask….

      Like


    • If you have to ask . , ,

      Like


    • how can a girl know if she is beautiful without asking people?

      Since our esteemed house boy seems to be on hiatus, allow me:

      (clears throat)

      What color is she?

      LZOZLZOZLZOZLZOZLZOZLZOZLZOZLZOZLOZLOZL

      Like


      • Greg Eliot coming out of retirement to fight those set ups, bums and women again?

        How original; or did your jooish handlers make that call?

        Like


      • Alas, yet another jest fallen flat!

        Is that you, thwackie old boy? The tells are the boxing metaphor and the astoundingly incongruent accusation.

        Heh, heh… if anyone else thinks that I, Greg Eliot, have “jooish handlers”, please raise your hand and expound upon the subject… it’s been awhile since I’ve heard meaty Tales That Witness Madness.

        Like


  9. At the end of the day, I can’t hate on girls like (younger) Strayed too much because girls like her have provided me such a steady supply of easy pussy over the years. They’re horny and sexually uninhibited and they respond well to being dominated. I’ve gotten more same-night lays, hell more same-HOUR lays, from her demographic, the college coeds, than any other group. Even now that I’m in my forties, I can still count on them for a low investment piece of ass. Just don’t keep em around very long. Short shelf life.

    Like


    • Yeah, feminism is cognitive dissonance. Most of my girlfriends are femme-flag saluting professionals. Boy, do they prefer to be handled in a traditional manner in private.

      In terms of their sexual politics, I just laugh and refuse to discuss, other than to be provocative by saying things like “feminism is eating itself. Manspreading, fuck me, get a life.” They live in a bubble, this kind of throwaway observation stuns them, then charms them.

      Oddly, I think this dissidence from SWPL cultural lockstep adds very significant credibility with their girlfriends, also. In my ongoing education, I just learned, in graphic, very specific detail just how much these women share with each other about their men. (One of a girlfriend’s girlfriend was drunk and flirting and told me how big my dick is.) Well, these girlfriends must approve or they wouldn’t talk to us. Such is the low-bar of being a transgressive outlaw: make jokes about Maureen Dowd and what steps her boytoys have to go to in order to get it up. Seriously? That’s it?

      I do think they know that feminism is all bullshit (at least in my cohort). While the toxic lesbians believe their own bullshit, even nightmarish Lena Dunham publishes fantasies about being dominated. They use feminism as a force multiplier at work and in state policy; they sure don’t want to live it. I’ve never met a Strong Independent Woman who didn’t crave caring, effective sexual domination.

      Like


  10. Been reading through this blog and generally enjoying it, but I still am trying to figure out what exactly it stands for. Okay, its obviously a retort to the considerable overreach of feminism in recent decade, but beyond that, I’m a little foggy. I’m enjoying the whole frank evolutionary psychology/ Freakenomics perspective when it comes to the mating marketplace, but I’m not clear where the author stands on gender roles. Does the author support true egalitarianism where men and women should be permitted to pursue what they want? Does he support traditional, entrenched gender roles?

    And it he belittling men that have no interest in being an “alpha male?” I mean, a lot of men find chasing women endlessly tedious and boring. A lot of men want, and have, a meaningful and fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship with a woman. Is the author against this notion entirely? I really don’t care what people want in life when it comes to the pursuit or non-pursuit of sexuality, but I’m just curious where he lands.

    Like


    • CH definitely hammers home on being an alpha male because its beneficial for the individual man in a world thats kinda rigged against you…what you do with that power is up to you, CH gives advice on both how to bang lots of hos and on how to properly maintain a relationship with the modern woman and avoid being screwed over by the feminist system

      he also advocates for evolutionary based gender roles rather than the modern day ‘women acting like men’ and ‘men acting like women’ situation

      Like


      • Okay, that’s a novel position. Being an evolutionary biologist myself (and an enthusiast of evolutionary psychologist) though, I’m not entirely sure I agree with his position regarding “evolutionary based gender roles.” Evolutionary gender roles, in humans and other social animals, are more of a continuum than hard positions, and attributes involved with sexual selection tend to settle into equilibrium around numerous different reproductive strategies. Some males pursue the strategy of the faithful provider, some the protector, some the stag, some the rapist (sneaker or streaker), etc. etc.

        [CH: sure, there’s intrasex behavior variation. but that individual variation tells us nothing about the degree of intersex behavior variation, which, when we examine directly, pretty conclusively shows that men are on average likely to pursue male oriented sex roles and women to pursue female oriented sex roles.]

        Personally, I’m athletic and charismatic, but I prefer cerebral pursuits rather than the pursuit of the conventionally machismo. I roll my eyes if anyone tells me I’m somehow “doing sex and love wrong” because I’m happy with my life. The idea of spending all of my valuable time chasing girls just seems tedious to me when I can get better sex and more emotional gratification from someone that knows me better and “knows what I like.” I settled down with a woman of high caliber, love being primary caretaker of my children, and my marriage has been very fulfilling both physically and emotionally. I’m the kind of guy that finds a dish he likes at a restaurant and orders it every time. I don’t expect EVERYONE to live like me, but why should I be ashamed of how I’ve achieved happiness?

        I can’t tell whether the author is advocating for all men to behave a particular way and shunning those who don’t or whether he’s simply bringing to light genetically pre-programmed proclivities that feminists deny exist. The later I can get behind. But good marriages, and rational women, exist in the world… but —surprise!!!— you aren’t going to find them in bars.

        [why not? how is finding a girl in a bar any different than finding a girl online? or on the street? or at an art gallery?]

        In my opinion, I think men and women should be permitted to pursue whatever their passions may be. At the moment, though, women have been given the historic gender privileges that men have enjoyed while simultaneously locking men out of the historic gender privileges that women have enjoyed. The feminists will wail and gnash their teeth over the number of women in STEM fields or upper management, but won’t utter a word about the non-existent presence of men in early education of children, primary caretaking of children, etc. etc. And believe me, it isn’t men keeping men out of those jobs and responsibilities. It’s women.

        Like


      • D.

        This place isn’t about either egalitarianism or hard-set gender roles enforced by society. It’s not about advocating for or against marriage (although last I checked, CH is strongly against marriage, but just fine with non-committed LTRs). It’s about sitting poolside and enjoying the last few, fine days before the fall. There are other bloggers that address those questions more directly.

        Also, while I’m glad that your relationship works for you, studies are showing now that the wife as the primary breadwinner is a major divorce risk for the man. It’s one of those little nagging resentments that can simmer for years on low before boiling over.

        When men and women are free to pursue whatever roles they want, we see less “equality” in the selections they make for themselves (ie, fewer men in nursing, fewer women in IT).

        Like


      • good luck friend. every client couple I’ve dealt with in the last 20 years where the woman was the primary earner has ended in divorce, initiated by her. may you be the exception that proves the rule.

        Like


      • Cynthia and X, but that’s precisely my point when it comes to feminism and gender roles. Right now, in our society, men are expected to be traditionally men, and when they want to do what has been traditionally the role of women, they get scorned. Women, on the other hand, are permitted to do whatever they’d like. If women want to be stay at home parents, they are held up as virtuous for putting their kids first. If a Dad wants to do it, then women think, “Oh, it’s just because the bum can’t get a job.” Personally, I work 30-40 hours a week and spend 3 and a half days a week taking care of a newborn. When women hear that I really didn’t want to miss my daughter’s earliest years and wanted to shoulder half the responsibility of child rearing, they looked at me with skepticism and wondered, “And your wife is okay with that?” Their impression was that I was robbing her of what was rightfully hers.

        So really, it’s my position that the problem isn’t that women are permitted to, you know, do stuff. It’s that when men could otherwise branch out into areas that have been historically the domain of women, they instead get tight cast into their traditional roles.

        I personally don’t advocate for most men to get married at this moment in time, because I agree whole heartedly that our current social climate is very hostile to men in marriage. Most of the time, they get very little but are expected to give a lot. They are expected to control whatever instinctual impulses or violent tendencies they may have but it is permissible for a woman to basically behave however they’d like, with very little emphasis on emotional self control. Moorays have been drilled into men like “don’t hit a girl” but when it comes to wives, there is no commandment in our social ether that reads, “Thou shalt not make your husband’s life a living hell by nagging him until his soul disintegrates.”

        Still, smart people are perfectly capable of making marriage work. Some people are pre-disposed to it. Some are not.

        All this being said, I think society will correct itself the same way that markets will. The backlash to academic feminism will be heard, traditional gender roles held by women will be opened to men, and all will be well. The only way to get through that evolutionary process, though, is dialogue.

        Like


    • You write well for someone who can’t read or comprehend

      Like


      • C.H., thanks for the wellworded reply. It’s good to have a conversation without being derailed by (too many) trolls. I could never have this kind of conversation with a feminist. That being said, I agree with you on all points. The male and female psyche are both anchored to different ends of the “masculinity vs femininity” continuum, with men gravitating toward their side and women gravitating toward the other. However, there is plenty of overlap, and men and women pursue a broad range of strategies. I think we both agree there. However, I’m not convinced we should be coercing all men to aspire to a John Wayne style archetype. It would make someone like me miserable because you’d be trying to drag me away from my own center of gravity. Like I said, “the game” you play and discuss in this blog is amusing to a lot of men, but not me.

        As for bars being a place to find girls, I never said it was a bad place to find girls. It’s just a bad place to find a specific type of girl. Context matters. There are lots of girls on a given day at Disney World, but the context there is not complementary to pursuing sexual opportunities. The context of a bar IS the pursuit of sexual opportunities for both men and women, but men and women don’t often go to a bar looking for a stable life partner who won’t make their day to day life a living hell. They go, both men and women alike, to “play the game” that this blog gives advice about. Nothing wrong with that, but if you are a man looking for a a rational, marriage material woman the bar CAN work, but is by far a mediocre option.

        So for instance, the kind of woman I’d want to marry (and I have) is a woman who puts reason and rationality above emotions, and the best place to find that kind of woman is in various fields of science. And that IS where I found my wife. If I hadn’t found that woman yet, I’d do what I’m doing right now: teach a science in college. Every semester, I meet at least 2-3 women who would fit my otherwise high intellectual and emotional standards. I would pretty much never meet that kind of woman in a bar.

        Like


      • Most droll.

        Like


      • your points are decent….but try not to project your own life experiences onto that of widespread society..if what you said is true sounds like you found yourself an intj girl (less than 1% prevalent in female population found mostly in science fields)

        im an intj male myself who learned game and have been through the thrusts of the dating market…its a tough time out there for most men and you are deluding yourself, all single women at least go to bars and clubs

        Like


      • on December 23, 2014 at 10:27 pm having a bad day

        @d.

        “There are lots of girls on a given day at Disney World, but the context there is not complementary to pursuing sexual opportunities.”

        lol…you need to do MUCH more reading in the archives here…also, try Krauser PUA and Rational Male in the side bar up on the right…

        in reviewing these websites, just observe the science/scientific methodology in play…then interface with the real world and do some predictive action modeling based on blue pill/red pill outcome predictions (interact with real live girls)…to collect data points for your model…

        when you are done reading ‘enough,’ and following through with data point accumulation, you will understand that AWALT (some more so than others…lol…yes, including your wife…), regardless of where you met her or how ‘sciency’ she is…

        what you don’t go into, but it’s still in play in every relationship, is the SMV of the players…if your wife is 2 points lower than you, she can be the bread winner and you’ll still be fine…maybe…as long as someone else at your same SMV level, who has a better job doesn’t come along and pursue her…if you are about equal SMV and she is the breadwinner…you’ll be divorced soon enough…OR you’ll learn game to manage that risk…(or have unwittingly ‘lucked’ into applying game in situ…) don’t under estimate the dread you are inducing in your wife by being surrounded by college girls that could replace her…lol…

        good luck!

        Like


    • Anonymous, that accusation could be leveled against you just as easily. Couldn’t you be projecting your own life experiences on to society as well? To say that 1 percent of marriages work sounds like just a little bit of hyperbole to me. I already mentioned in another post (which appears not to have shown up yet) that I wouldn’t recommend marriage for most men at the present time because it doesn’t offer very much to men now a days. That being said, I think its pretty obvious that a lot of marriages work and a lot of marriages fail.

      Like


    • Lol, Having a Bad Day, I’m in no way, shape, or form a romanticist. We’re cynics through and through (and both enthusiasts of mate market models, even going so far as to joke and assess each other’s mate worthiness). In fact, my specialty in academia WAS population and behavioral ecology modeling and biometry, so this type of modeling is my specialty. I just think that C.H.’s models when it comes to pursuing casual or initial sexual encounters are overly simplistic when it comes to models that would predict sustainable marriage. And of course, given that they have a satirical and intentional “trolling” element to them, why shouldn’t they be? I mean, I modeled woodpecker immigration models that were more complicated, yet the human brain evolved in many ways as an organ to navigate social structure and one might even say that it is an organ of sexual selection. Shouldn’t it just be a tad more complex?

      So anyway, thanks, I think I got what I came for. I’ll check out some of the more analytic. I’m interested in the way that social movements evolve, and I can see that while the feminist backlash has some good ideas, it wallows in a bit too much recreational bitterness to be taken too seriously. It’s pretty obvious that a lot of people who frequent these circles are sensitive “beta males” that were scarred for life when they got turned down by the hottest cheerleader on the cheerleading squad back in highschool.

      Still, it was a fun romp.

      Like


  11. on December 22, 2014 at 5:30 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    You need to explain who Strayed is in this post. It mutes the force of what you’re writing if people have to Google it. This is an important point that needs to be sharper.

    My suggestion:

    “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”. (Cheryl Strayed’s memoir “Wild” is an account of her bedding a lot of men and doing a lot of drugs and is now a motion picture starring Reese Witherspoon.)

    Like


    • on December 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm Days of Broken Arrows

      Addendum: I noticed this same thing ten years ago when writers were trashing the Jude Law movie “Alfie” — because he was a cad who couldn’t grow up — yet had just praised “Sex and the City” to high heaven, when it went off the air a few months earlier. He was sexist, they were “groundbreaking.”

      Like


    • I kind of agree.

      I know who Russel Brand is but I had to Google Strayed to understand who she was and why we were talking about her.

      Like


  12. So let’s follow this line of feminist thinking to its logical end. Male sexuality is maximally shamed, female desire and sexuality are maximally exhorted, then what? Now we have a world where women are free to hit on whatever men they want whenever, and men are now the gatekeepers of sexuality. Power has actually shifted to men, as women have now become the aggressors save for a few apex alphas who will now drown in high quality pussy without even trying…and male approaches are so aggressively denounced and discouraged that only the top 1% will be bold enough to say “fuck you.” These 1% will be consistently vilified by mainstream society to discourage other young men from following their example.

    Guess what? Those men that now hold the keys to sex will STILL follow their biological imperative to breed with the hottest broads. The men of youth will still want to slam hotties. Their dicks will still get hard at the sight of a young, gorgeous girl. The fugs will still be fugs. Men’s lack of erections for the uggs will belie their true state of attraction. In short, nothing will change for the nasty hos in terms of high quality men – they will simply have made everyone except the hottest women and true alphas miserable, and passed gate keeping power to men. Stephen Hawking’s scientific analysis via robot voice:

    Great fucking job, retards.

    Like


  13. Here’s everything you need to know about Cheryl Strayed and the movie:
    Daughter of single slutty mom follows in mom’s footsteps. Marries a beta (they get matching tattoos on the day they get divorced) but then she bangs many, many dudes on the side. Mom/role model dies. Daughter has a breakdown so she takes a long walk, continues to bang strangers along the way, and finds redemption. Becomes bestselling author and feminist role model. End of story.

    Like


  14. Forgot one thing:
    Marries a second beta and has two kids with him. Then spins her life story into a tale that links her promiscuity to hard times.

    As part of the spin, a cute, petite, feminine actress (Witherspoon) plays her average-looking man-jawed masculine self in the movie, to make it seem more… um…. realistic.

    Like


    • i just looked at a pic of cheryl strayed. she’s old now, but under the sag there appears to be buried a once-cute post-teen fucktoy. iow, her past skankitude is believable. as is her late-in-life conversion to the feminist apostolic church.

      Like


  15. ” nothing will change for the nasty hos in terms of high quality men – they will simply have made everyone except the hottest women and true alphas miserable”

    And that my friend is the real point of feminism……..

    Its a way for Apex men to monopolize the pussy and to have harems. Unleash female sexuality and they will only want the alphas …..And the alphas will take all the young hot ones…..leaving behind only the dregs of which a multitude of unhappy betas can fight over….

    Feminism everywhere and at all times is promoted and paid for by very very rich men……

    Like


  16. Strayed, huh? Funny how some people have such jaw-droppingly appropriate names.

    Like


  17. Brown men are animals, while spoiled western white women continue to think white betas are the evil ones.

    http://us.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/meast/isis-justification-female-slaves/?c=&page=0

    Like


    • That links to a story about how depression in mothers is linked to bad behavior by children. But I think they got it backwards; having a terrible child is probably the CAUSE for maternal depression, not the SYMPTOM.

      Like


      • I don’t care what it says. I’m TELLING you most women resent their children and need drugs to fight depression.

        Like


      • The terrible child is almost 100% caused by the terrible mother. (almost, because sometimes having a despicable father is the cause). Of course, since she is usually a selfish lazy b!tch who always took the easiest way out of every difficult aspect of parenting, her guilty conscience hammers her from the inside of her brain, causing depression.

        Well, that plus the compounding effect of natural womanhood – which is to deny responsibility and always default to victim status. Depression is a huge sign of a high degree of solipsism.

        Like


      • “The terrible child is almost 100% caused by the terrible mother.”

        Nature doesn’t play a role? Really? I know WAY too many families with a great kid and a terrible kid to believe that.

        Like


      • Nature plays a small role. Through sheer laziness, the mother (and to some degree, the father, but we’re talking about depressed mothers here) doesn’t take the time and energy and focus to change her parenting style to accommodate the other child’s needs. She goes with the parenting style that she grew up with and is comfortable with, one which is easiest for her to do, but really misses the boat for the other child.

        Like


  18. […] Champion Of Promiscuity, Or Garden Variety Skank? | Chateau Heartiste […]

    Like


  19. Rape culture hysteria is meant to make sure that a man is indebted to any woman he has sex with. It exists to make sure that the free pussy ugly feminists give away isn’t free anymore. Pump her and dump her and you’ll have to pay the bill afterwards.

    Like


  20. my favorite example of how stupid feminist are is that movie “free the nipple” because they want to walk around topless, even though they were just complaining about men saying “hello” to them in that 10 hour video.

    because walking around topless would totally lead to a decrease in the amount of approaches by men. girllogic!

    Like


  21. “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.”

    Here’s where the logic goes off the rails. Male promiscuity doesn’t equal disrespect for women. He MIGHT disrespect women, but we don’t know it from his notch count.

    Like


  22. By “strayed”, I thought it was pointing out the obvious, then found out it was her last name.

    In reading these posts, it brings a smile to my face when a few ladies from work had commented on the movie. Perhaps they’s (sic) looking for some action, but like the old saying goes, “don’t shit where you eat.”

    Like


  23. It is not about the femcunt feminists. Never is, never was.

    It’s about PTB who benefit from the cheap, cheap, labour, the easily maneuvered atomized masses, and the keeping busy of possible troublemakers (ambitious & moderately psychopatic alphaboys) with ALL THAT POOSY!.

    oink

    Like


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

    Or bigger picture…

    Removing all responsibility and agency from females and placing it all on males.

    Like


  25. on December 24, 2014 at 2:46 pm Hilary Clinton

    Russell Brand is the ultimate cultural marxist, useful idiot ponce.

    Like


  26. I’m an 8.5-9 and want to jumpstart a celibacy movement among women. Looking to re-define feminism. Lifestyle choices that have been sold as ‘female empowerment’ like abortion, birth control, and promiscuity do not “free” women but remove obligation and responsibility from men. Women have one evolutionary task….to protect their reproductive organs and properly facilitate the reproductive process. We’ve allowed this process to be compromised w/2nd and 3rd wave feminism (one-night stands, STDs, birth control & abortion). Abortion is antithetical to what the female’s highest purpose is. Blah blah blah. I advocate long-term celibacy and would love to see a coming-of-age year of celibacy catch on with 17-18 y/o girls…however unrealistic a dream this is. I want men’s access to sex to be extremely limited. I would love to see brothels on every corner wherein even obese, homely women can command $500 an hour for sex. 8s, 9s, and 10s would be matrimonally accessible only to men of high status & wealth/power. Abstinence should be celebrated with tokens/chips akin to AA members commemorating lengths of time of sobriety. Virginity, abstinence, and celibacy in general should be embraced and celebrated by girls and women. Celibacy parties, cakes, etc. Would be difficult if not impossible to make this trendy with women, because most have poor impulse control and are, well, stupid. Women do not respond to appeals to intellect, rationality, logic or reason. Women by and large respond to vanity and emotion. Vainglory. They do not want to follow unsightly, angry, unfashionable bull dykes. They want to follow ultra-feminine, chic, perfect-bodied beauties like me. Women get off on how much men desire them. They look to emulate the women most desired by men. It took no effort on my part for women both younger and older to copy my style and accessories. To solicit me for advice on everything from hair to hormones to my fitness regimen too. Women will be more receptive to a paradigm-challenging message if the packaging is pretty. I am launching my misandrist crusade in 2015.

    Like


    • You want to fundamentally change one of the driving forces of human nature, with some pretty repackaging, and without changing any of the legal structures that underlie the current system of female hypergamy?

      I’d say it would be fun to watch, except few of us like to see a (self-described) 8.5 – 9 waste so much time on a futile quest rather than being a pleasant, feminine addition to society.

      Knock yourself out, and good luck with that.

      Like


  27. […] unequal sexual market, then it’s not really about equality. It’s about something else, such as the primal human desire to increase one’s own power even at the expense of others. [This kind of sexual inequality leads to a vicious cycle. Men with an insufficiently high n are […]

    Like