Posted on | February 9, 2013 | 48 Comments
Boston ‘Slutwalk’ 2011: Unattractive women chant stupid slogans
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.