The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Stop Putting Out So Much, Ugly Sluts: Science Proves Undeniable Truth #24

Posted on | February 9, 2013 | 48 Comments

Boston ‘Slutwalk’ 2011: Unattractive women chant stupid slogans

Instapundit linked a dating study and added this:

Interestingly, the more attractive the woman, the fewer sexual partners.

You didn’t really need a scientific study to know this, if you’ve been studying feminism as long as I have. Just ask yourself: Why are feminists so angry at men? It’s not merely because they are ugly — not all ugly women are feminists — but rather because they are bitter after discovering that their promiscuity doesn’t actually make them more attractive (which popular culture had convinced them would be the case).

That’s what all the rhetoric about “sexual empowerment” is really aimed at, and it’s also why feminists get so riled up about “slut shaming.”

Back in November, when Gen. David Petraeus was immersed in a sex scandal, I set off a minor controversy by entitling a post about the general’s mistress, “The Slut Paula Broadwell,” which was cited by several feminists (e.g., Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones and Meghan Casserly at increasingly leftist Forbes) as proof of the horrible damage inflicted by the sexist double standard, etc.

Of course, no one could deny that Paula Broadwell was a two-timing homewrecker, and no one ventured to argue that what Paula Broadwell did was actually a good thing, but my blunt contradiction of the sexual empowerment narrative clearly enraged the soi-disant intellectuals who can’t think outside the Conventional Wisdom, which nowadays insists that no woman should ever be called a “slut,” no matter how demonstrably slutty she may be. This is identity politics as a self-esteem exercise: “Yea for our team!” — in this case, women, but in other cases ethnic groups or homosexuals — and anyone who doesn’t unskeptically cheer for the team must be denounced as a hater.

Once the collectivist groupthink takes hold, it doesn’t matter whether the policy that flows from this self-esteem politics is actually good for the group or not. So long as the policy is justified by the Official Group Ideology and approved by the Official Group Leaders, skepticism about the efficacy of the group-endorsed policy will be condemned as betrayal of the group. (News flash: Republicans are often guilty of the same thing, cf. “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the Bush administration in general.)

Ah . . . yes, sluts. Excuse the digression.

Having convinced themselves that promiscuity is “sexual empowerment,” feminists must expunge from our language such fine Anglo-Saxon words as slut and whore, as part of an ideological campaign to exterminate whatever vestigal remnants of Judeo-Christian morality may have survived the Sexual Revolution. And because this is justified by the Official Group Ideology and approved by the Official Group Leaders, no man may criticize it without being denounced as a misogynistic patriarchal oppressor. Any woman who questions the “sexual empowerment” rhetoric — “Hey, why is it so ‘empowering’ to risk getting your ladyparts all gunked up with herpes, genital warts and chlamydia?” — is ostracized as a Traitor to the Revolutionary Cause.

Unfortunately for the feminist commissars, human nature refuses to yield to their dogma, and the strident fury of their denunciations amounts to an attempt to suppress facts through the exercise of political power. As I mentioned last night, political correctness is hostile to common sense, because if the utopian visions of the progressive ideologues were compatible with common sense, there would be no need for all the legislation, litigation and indoctrination by which they attempt to remake the world to fit their intellectual abstractions.

When scientific research is applied to the problem, therefore, we are not surprised that facts debunk the “sexual empowerment” myth:

  • Very physically attractive women are more likely to form exclusive relationships than to form purely sexual relationships; they are also less likely to have sexual intercourse within the first week of meeting a partner. Presumably, this difference arises because more physically attractive women use their greater power in the partner market to control outcomes within their relationships.
  • For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness, whereas for men, the number of sexual partners increases with increasing physical attractiveness.
  • For women, the number of reported sexual partners is tied to weight: Thinner women report fewer partners. Thinness is a dimension of attractiveness for women, so is consistent with the finding that more attractive women report fewer sexual partners.

There are many cruel blows to the feminist worldview here. To start with, their “sexual empowerment” rhetoric seems mainly to have been embraced by ugly fat women, which may explain why Sandra Fluke was so adamant about getting free contraceptives.

Secondly, decades of feminist indoctrination and pop-culture propaganda have failed to make promiscuity the desired lifestyle of women who are best able to choose their options. Really good-looking women don’t put out because they don’t have to put out, and instead prefer fewer partners and exclusive relationships.

Third, this scientific study was done by a young female sociologist, Elizabeth McClintock. Of course, Dr. McClintock teaches at Notre Dame University, so the Amanda Marcotte/Melissa McEwan feminist axis can comfort themselves by calling her a “christofascist godbag.”

Fourth and finally — ah, the cruelest cut of them all — Dr. McClintock’s research provides further scientific proof of a controversial hypothesis.

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
Rush Limbaugh, Undeniable Truth of Life #24

Nothing is more offensive to feminists than the truth.

 

 


Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Finrod Felagund

    I’ve run across a number of men that prefer to date the BBW types instead of the thin and pretty types, on the theory that the BBW is more likely to be good in bed because they need to develop good skills there in order to compete. The thin and pretty types don’t need to be good in bed in order to get in bed with someone.

  • robertstacymccain

    Also, as a general rule, fatter women are better cooks. At some point in a man’s life, he realizes that good cooking makes a far greater difference in his quality of life than the kind of silly superficial stuff that young fellows care about.
    My wife was very skinny when I married her. She’s a much better cook now.

  • SDN

    As usual, Kipling was wise first:

    Now, if you must marry, take care she is old —
    A troop-sergeant’s widow’s the nicest I’m told,
    For beauty won’t help if your rations is cold,
    Nor love ain’t enough for a soldier.

  • sablegsd

    Then I must be a supermodel, since hubby was my first and only for 35 years now. LOL Oh, and I don’t cook at all.

  • jakee308

    Feminists are angry at men because of jealousy and envy and a form of self hate.
    They hate that they are women, they hate that their body acts the way it does, they’re jealous that men don’t have the same burden and are envious that somehow men have it easier than they do.

    They’re really angry at the Universe but the men are easier to blame.

    It’s irrational but then most insanity is.

  • jakee308

    Uh, oh.

    Better hope she doesn’t read the blog.

    DUCK Stace!

    She’s reading over your shoulder!

  • Neo

    Once upon a time in the offices of Public Citizen, it was uttered that the final frontier of anti-discrimination was “discrimination against ugly people”.

    Since beauty, the opposite of ugly, is in the eye of the beholder, ugly is also in the eye of the beholder. Setting standards by with “discrimination against ugly people” can be measured is … well … ugly.

  • Rick20033

    I recently got into a lonnng debate with a slut who disliked my “slut shaming.” I say she was a slut because she said she’d had something like a hundred sexual partners. Based on her photo, I can tell you the suggestion that “For women, the number of sexual partners decreases with increasing physical attractiveness” has merit.

  • jsn2

    Those sluts are mad because they put out their fair share and still get no respect, kinda like the over taxed rich under obama.

  • FenelonSpoke

    I really don’t think Sandra Fluke is that unattractive and although he talked about contraception as a right who knows how many sexual partners she has had. Her father is Methodist minister so I’m assuming she was raised with some moral standards.

  • http://twitter.com/ThatChristyChic Christy Waters

    Feminists are such a pathetic comedy routine… Bunch of ugly harpies dress up in honey hole costumes and then wonder why nobody takes them seriously. But if they were smart, they wouldn’t be feminists.

  • JeffWeimer

    “Fat Bottom Girls” agrees with you. They try harder.

  • Roxeanne de Luca

    By the logic of “the fewer the sexual partners, the hotter the woman,” I should be smoking hot, but I’m not. Some of us rationally understand that if we ‘have’ to use sex to get a guy, we’re better off without him, even if no better guy comes along. Alone and career-focused (and friend-focused, and family-focused) is not the end of the world, and it beats the pants off selling out (or giving away for free, as the case may be).

    The ironic thing is that these “empowered feminists” do nothing but prove their insecurities and their need for men, while the more parthenogenic live a far more free and fulfilling life.

  • Roxeanne de Luca

    To continue the thought: being somewhat plain, but chaste, is like being poor and responsible with money. That one is poor does not mean that one has to play the lottery, nor buy $300 status purses and huge cars to ape the mannerisms of the more wealthy; likewise, that one is not attractive enough command a monogamous, exclusive relationship is no reason to slut it up.

    (Rationally, unattractive women should prefer the old ways of doing things, wherein all women were given the opportunity to be chaste, not just hot women. But expecting liberals to understand reason is like expecting one’s pet turtle to solve differential equations.)

  • http://twitter.com/thatMrGguy Mike G.

    You know what they say about Minister’s daughters….

  • FenelonSpoke

    I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Roseanne.

    Some liberal women are a very odd bunch. I can’t say all because some of my best friends are liberals women. A conservative woman I know remarked that they thought the sexual display of Beyonce wasn’t really appropriate for the Super Bowl and, one liberal woman I know (NOT my friend ) screeched, “You are envious of sexy and strong women.” My thought was: “Well, no, I’m not; I think you’re a brainless but attractive idiot who allows men to treat you as sexual booty and feels yourself somehow empowered that way”. Of course, I didn’t say that. I just thought it. That reminds me of the slut walk thing.

  • rightactions

    You fit the profile.

  • Blake

    I honestly don’t think there are that many butt ugly women or men.

    Some of the hottest women I’ve known aren’t necessarily strikingly gorgeous, but they know how to dress, keep fit and carry themselves well.

    Anyone can become ugly. Just hold down a couch for months at a time while doing repeated 12 ounce curls.

    Like everything else in this world, keeping up one’s appearance requires some effort and sacrifice.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    They make the rockin world go round…

  • DaveO

    Going at it from the wrong angle. Try going after the men. American men are already conditioned to open doors for women, and then lose their jobs. Feminists = easy sex, no child support, and a great way to waste time before a football game. And, if she’s further along in her career, you can upgrade from burgers and nachos to fried onions and steak that she pays for.
    Feminism anaesthetizes women from the paradox that their search for freedom places them on their knees for The Man.

    It’s great to be a American man!

  • DaveO

    You are denying Fluke free will and the consequences of making decisions. Her purpose at Georgetown Law was to serve as an agitator in attacks on the Roman Catholic Church. What her father did or does is immaterial to the argument.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Indeed, they do.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    And they fail to realize that men have their own set of crosses to bear, so all-enveloping is their Narcissism.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    (1) Mrs. Other knows that Stacy is devoted to her [and a bit frightened].
    (2) If you’ve seen a recent picture of her, she’s quite lovely.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    What kind of Methodist???

  • http://twitter.com/dustbury Charles G Hill

    Fifty years ago, Jimmy Soul anticipated all of this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003232872834 Becca Lower

    Hey now, I’m a Methodist…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003232872834 Becca Lower

    And lovely to speak to, as well.

  • Todd

    Did you write an article on the slut David Patraeus?

  • Todd

    Did I miss the article on the slut David Patraeus? 
    I mean, I don’t think its the ‘slut’ label so much as it is the fact that it is not used for the men who were sluts with the slutty women? 

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    You’re goddamned right they don’t. All they have to do is get in the bed and lay there. I’ll do the rest.!

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    Men that prefer fat women to thin beautiful women with great figures are maybe just a wee bit insecure, “wee bit” perhaps being the operative phrase.

  • Quartermaster

    Did you know the UMC Treasurer of Ohio west is a Queer? IT’s causing a bit of upset among the faithful. One friend was working on Ministerial licensure and quit when the appointment came down.

    The evangelicals had been winning most of the battles, but the Bishop isn’t backing down on the appointment.

  • Quartermaster

    It’s actually surprising that TOM is still alive given some of what he’s posted here. Assuming, of course, he isn’t just bragging. :-)

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    Actually some of those women would be fairly attractive if they didn’t have such a complete lack of self-esteem.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    I’m trying to imagine Kurt Schlichter’s wife Irina Moises with a package of Hamburger Helper in hand. Not working for some reason.

  • Jonteeh

    I’ll gladly have sex with a promiscuous woman, if I’m only after sex I actually prefer a sexually experienced woman. When it comes to casual sex studies have actually shown that men prefer sluts.

    But if I’m after a committed relationship and starting a family I won’t date a slut. The explanation is quite simple, as a man I cannot be 100% sure that I’m the father of the child, therefore I will try to limit the risk of being cuckolded to a minimum. And one way of doing that is chosing a woman who is less likely to have sex with other men.

    I find it hilarious that feminists can’t grasp this simple reality.

  • Jonteeh

    Well the evolutionairy theory goes somewhat like this

    it is quite easy for a average woman to get sex from a really attractive man. But it’s very very hard for her to get him to commit to her. The reason for that is that when it comes to uncommitted sex men have very low standards, much lower than for committed relationships.

    Therefore it can be an effective evolutionairy strategy to be slutty if you’re only an average woman. The evolutionairy benefit is that you are more likely to get a man with good genes to father your child, the downside though that you are much less likely to get commitment since you’re having sex with many men, other men won’t commit to you since they are at risk of being cuckolded.

    A VERY attractive woman though can get sex AND commitment from a very attractive man. Therefore there are less evolutionairy benefits for her being promiscuous.

  • Roxeanne de Luca

    Except:
    1. You still need someone to help you care for that child, so slutting it up is a bad evolutionary theory (and has been condemned by every civilisation on earth until roughly 1963); and

    2. Haven’t we evolved beyond the instincts found in field mice?

  • Wombat_socho

    I’ve met the lady and can verify this. Does not look her age in the slightest.

  • Wombat_socho

    As Dizzy Dean used to say “If it’s the truth, it ain’t braggin’.”

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    THIS.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    The beauty within, or lack thereof, shows up on the face.

  • Quartermaster

    The rich are quite frequently leftists. They are getting condign punishment from their boy Zer0. You’d think they would be smarter than they act, being rich and all. I guess they think their wealth was acquired like winning the lottery instead of because they had the freedom to pursue their own interests.

  • Quartermaster

    Then why isn’t TOM dead? :-)

  • Quartermaster

    I like curvy women. Women built like 10 year old boys with boobs glued on have no attraction for me. I also like women that are comfortable being women, rather than trying to out boy the men.

  • Quartermaster

    If you are glad to have sex with a loose woman, then you should be happy with any surprises she may be carrying she obtained from the men that went there before you. Uncommitted sex is a form of highly risky behavior that fits in with other high risk activities that can kill or maim you.

  • Pingback: Being a Slut Ins't Successful, and why the Feminists Hate the Truth