The Other McCain

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

‘Camp Epic’: Gay California Teacher Molested Boys as Young as 11

Posted on | March 16, 2014 | 129 Comments

“Allegedly” — it’s important always to add “allegedly”:

Even as he allegedly abused the middle-school age children left in his care, even as he purportedly lied to parents about field trips throughout the Bay Area, court documents show that Ronald Guinto articulated a strict code to his campers: “What happens at Camp Epic stays at Camp Epic.”
What allegedly happened on the off-campus, overnight camping trips was repeated sexual abuse of 11-and 12-year old boys, the documents say. . . .
Authorities say Guinto recruited his victims while he was teaching at Making Waves Academy, a charter school in Richmond near Hilltop Mall, to join Camp Epic, an organization he founded in 2009 as part of his Master’s degree program in urban education. Nineteen students have been identified as participating in Camp Epic, which has no affiliation with the charter school . . . investigation into Guinto began on Oct. 29, when an administrator at Making Waves called Richmond police to report Guinto had been placed on administrative leave for an inappropriate Facebook conversation with an 11-year-old student, according to a probable cause statement by lead investigator Detective Walton Nelson.
Within weeks, investigators uncovered Guinto had taken students on trips to Mount Diablo State Park, San Jose, Yosemite, and Napa, engaging in sex acts with students inside tents beginning in December 2012 and ending as recently as Oct. 26, three days before police were notified, according to documents. On that outing, the parents of one of the boys said they thought their son and other students were camping overnight at Mare Island, but Guinto instead took them [to] a Motel 6 in Vallejo, Nelson wrote. Guinto allegedly slept in the same bed as two boys.
One 12-year-old boy told an investigator that his alleged abuse began in December 2012, when he was sleeping in a tent with Guinto and another student. Guinto allegedly asked the boy if he could fondle him, the first of about 30 such incidents spread over about 10 campouts, according to documents.
At a camping trip in Napa Skyline in 2013, the boy said, Guinto woke him up in the middle of the night to show him a video titled “Teacher Porn,” and then performed oral sex on him. . . .

Read the whole thing. Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

 

Category: California, Crime, Education, Gays, Sex

Malaysia Mystery Deepens

Posted on | March 16, 2014 | 18 Comments

Honestly, I expected this missing jet thing to be resolved quickly, but now it’s taken a decidedly weird turn:

Malaysian authorities said Sunday that the number of countries involved in the search for the missing jetliner has increased from 14 to 25, as the investigation shifted its focus toward the actions of the flight crew. . . .
The widening of the search for the jet follows authorities’ revelation on Saturday that someone on board the vanished jet made a series of highly technical actions to deliberately hide the plane from modern detection systems.
The homes of both the pilot and the co-pilot were searched on Saturday, and a flight simulator belonging to pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 59, is being examined, Hishammuddin said. Authorities are also investigating the engineers who worked on the plane.
The South China Morning Post reported Sunday that Zaharie has close ties with Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who was recently sentenced to prison on a charge of sodomy, which the opposition has appealed. Speaking to USA TODAY, a close friend of Zaharie’s, Peter Chong, said Zaharie does support the opposition but that the reports that he may have had a role in diverting the plane were “not true.”
“He is a political activist, yes. And yes, he was in court for Anwar’s trial and he is our strong supporter, but that does not make him a terrorist,” said Chong.

There were two Iranians on board with stolen passports, but let’s ignore that, because the pilot had ties to a jailed opposition leader?

This kind of stuff practically guarantees that, whenever the truth about Flight 370 is finally discovered, many people will reject it, preferring to believe in conspiracy theories. Fire can’t melt steel!

 

Category: Conspiracy Theories

His Daughter’s Ex-Boyfriend

Posted on | March 16, 2014 | 48 Comments

Or, How to Get Shot Dead in Texas:

The Houston father who police say fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his daughter’s bedroom early Thursday morning will likely not be charged, an area prosecutor told MyFoxHouston.com.
Although a grand jury will review the case, prosecutor Warren Diepraam said it is unlikely that the father will be charged.
“What was going on in the person’s mind at the time of the shooting, [not] what they found out after the fact” is key, Diepraam said. “They’re looking at what he was thinking when he made the decision to shoot.”
The investigation into the shooting is ongoing, and a grand jury will ultimately decide if charges are appropriate. But so far it appears the father, who was only identified as a 55-year-old in reports, was awaken[ed] by one of his other children at about 2:20 a.m. He was told someone was in his 16-year-old daughter’s bedroom and he grabbed his gun.

(As any father in Texas would do, naturally.)

He reportedly found the teen in bed with his daughter and confronted him. His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.
The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she snuck her boyfriend, 17, into the house, the report said.

Everywhere across America, the parents of teenage girls are saying to each other, “Honey, we ought to move to Texas.”

 

Category: Texas

The U.N. And $5 Are Worth A Beverage At A Coffee Shop

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 24 Comments

by Smitty

Via Hot Air:

Russia has vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution that declared a planned referendum on the status of Ukraine’s Crimea region “can have no validity” and urged nations and international organisations not to recognise it.

“This is a sad and remarkable moment,” Samantha Power, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote by the 15-member Security Council.

I’m fond of saying that the U.N. is slightly better than no U.N. From the standpoint of the Ukraine, one is unsure what difference, at this point, it would make if the U.N. got the Ambassador Stevens treatment.
All this reminds me about a parody project I need to get to: “Backin’ the U.S.S.R.”

Category: Ukraine, United Nations

‘Snools Rule’: Mary Daly and the Radical Feminist School of Atrocious Writing

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 93 Comments

Mary Daly (October 16, 1928 – January 3, 2010) was an American radical feminist philosopher, academic, and theologian. Daly, who described herself as a “radical lesbian feminist”, taught at Boston College, a Jesuit-run institution, for 33 years. Daly retired in 1999, after violating university policy by refusing to allow male students in her advanced women’s studies classes. . . .
— Wikipedia

In one of the deranged rants by anti-PIV feminist Radical Wind quoted here previously, this sentence occurs:

Women’s situation is more complex since we are oppressed by all the different classes of men who are the originators and subjects of patriarchal snooldom.

“Snooldom”? I noticed that, but figured it was a made-up nonsense word. My guess was that the writer had one of those word-blank moments, but rather than stop and look up the word she wanted, just wrote “snooldom” in the draft with the intention to go back and insert the desired noun later in editing, which she subsequently neglected to do.

My guess was wrong, however. “Snooldom” was coined by Mary Daly in her 1984 book, Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy:

Given these conditions of Stag-Nation, Elemental Shrews and Furies urgently experience the need for Re-Naming/Re-Claiming our stolen Flames, undoing the promethean theft of Fire, retrieving our ravaged desire.
The would-be preventers of this retrieval of gynergy, the ghosts/ghouls that want our movement dead, are snools. The noun snool (Scottish) means “a cringing person”. It means also “a tame, abject, or mean-spirited person” (OED). In sadosociety, snools rule, and snools are the rule. . . . Snools are sadism and masochism combined, the stereotypic saints and heroes of the sadostate. . . .
Snools appear and re-appear in various forms. . . . Among the henchmen required for the smooth operation of fixocracy are the cocks, danglers, pricks, and flashers who keep girls and women intimidated. Necessary also are the fakes, framers, frauds and hucksters whose job is to manufacture and spread delusions. Heavier work is assumed by rakes, hacks, rippers and plug-uglies. . . .
Such, then, are the rulers/snoolers of snooldom, the place/time where the air is filled with the crowing of cocks, the joking of jocks, the droning of clones, the sniveling of snookers and snudges, the noisy parades and processions of prickers. Such is cockocracy/jockocracy, the State of supranational, supernatural erections. . . .

What is this nonsense? It resembles the “word salad” of schizophrenics, and any reader can be forgiven for suspecting that Mary Daly was one of the first feminists to discover that Women’s Studies is a license to steal: Get yourself a tenured professorship, find a publisher, submit a 300-page manuscript crammed with absurdities, and nobody cares!

Any book published by a tenured Women’s Studies professor is automatically profitable, because she will assign it to her students, it will be favorably reviewed in feminist journals, all university libraries will order a copy, and with any luck, the book will be added to the syllabus in other Women’s Studies departments. The author will sell copies at book signings in lesbian bookstores and, if it gets any media attention at all — even an hour on C-SPAN’s “Booknotes” — you’re guaranteed to sell 5,000-10,000 copies this way.

Years ago, when I worked at The Washington Times, I acquired quite a collection of feminist books from the “discard” table where editors of the book-review section left the books they didn’t want to keep. One of those feminist tomes was Mary Daly’s 1998 book, Quintessence… Realizing the Archaic Future: A Radical Elemental Feminist Manifesto. There are no words strong enough to describe how unspeakably wretched this book is. In this, however, it does not differ from anything else Mary Daly ever wrote. One of the few serious attempts to analyze Daly’s weird gibberish was Mary F. Rousseau’s review of Pure Lust, which included this:

The book is an instance of what it seems to recommend — new perceptions and judgments, expressed in a new language. It seems indeed, to be its author’s self-portrait. . . .
But the operative word is seems. For after a careful reading of more than 400 pages of Joycean word-play, this reviewer remains unsure of several of its main points. Words which have several different meanings are used in all of their meanings at once, often with intricate efforts to link all of the meanings of a word to the agenda of radical feminism. As often as not, entirely new meanings are assigned to words and new words are coined.

Applying the phrase “Joycean word-play” to Mary Daly’s writing involves an unnecessary insult to James Joyce. It is more apt to compare Daly to the “Beat” writers of the 1950s and ’60s, Jack Kerouac or Allen Ginsberg, except that their bohemian rebellion against bourgeois convention did not presume to represent a philosophy or political ideology. Daly’s method can only be explained as an expression of Sloth, Greed and Pride — having once become known as a “feminist author,” after publishing The Church and the Second Sex in the radical year 1968, she had found her market niche, which she felt obligated to continue exploiting with a new book every five years or so thereafter. However, her paucity of ideas and her unwillingness to do actual research led Daly to the crucial insight that consumers of radical feminist books didn’t really care about facts or logic or coherent argument. No, the feminist readership consists of disgruntled misfits who want someone to give voice to their inchoate rage.

My theory, then, is that Mary Daly discovered she could write books by spending a few hours a week sitting in front of a word-processor, probably with a supply of whiskey and ice near at hand, typing any kind of stream-of-consciousness nonsense that popped into her head. So long as her rants were aimed at the phallocratic patriarchy, and invoked the celebration of radical liberated womanhood, the incoherent nature of Daly’s prose was actually a feature, not bug. No one could refute her “arguments,” because no one could make sense of them.

And if any critic dared to point out the obvious truth — that Mary Daly was just an ugly woman whose anger toward men involved a large measure of sour-grapes rationalization — well, MISOGYNIST!

As a racket, then, radical feminism is a perfect hustle for any lazy writer fortunate enough to obtain an academic sinecure. As a philosophy that presumes to explain how the world operates, however, it is a useless dead end, a one-way ticket to Bedlam.

Regular readers will therefore not be surprised to learn that anti-PIV fanatic Radical Wind is a major Mary Daly fangirl:

Women by contrast are dispossessed from all the words necessary to name and therefore conceive of our condition — this is one of men’s most deadly weapons against women’s liberation. As Mary Daly says, “Women have had the power of naming stolen from us. We have not been free to use our own power to name ourselves, the world, or God.” (Beyond God the Father: Towards a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (1973), p.8). Radical feminists are cursed with this invisible distorting lens, men’s false reality separating us from the world and from ourselves, the meaning of our words doomed to never reach our recipients — we may repeat the truth of the atrocities again and again but so erased and reverted is our reality that even to get women to glimpse a modicum of men’s oppression and understand that men’s violence against us is not a victimless crime, may take years.

In other words, if feminist arguments don’t make sense, if they fail to persuade women that they are victims of oppression, this is not the fault of feminists. No, blame the patriarchy, which “dispossessed” women of the language they need to describe their “condition.”

Radical Wind repeatedly invokes Mary Daly as an authority:

[I]f we talk of popularity in terms of numbers, it isn’t difficult to see that the vast majority of women in the radical feminist community, especially those who have written and influenced current feminism, are not male-essentialist. As bloggers and regular commenters, including those who left, we’re just a handful, probably around 8-9 women, and the only published essentialist writers I know of are Mary Daly and Sonia Johnson. That’s two. Sonia Johnson, who in order to have her work published uncensored, self-publishes, and Mary Daly, whose immense philosophical work is often discounted as merely spiritual, and her essentialism is rarely if ever discussed seriously in radfem work.
— Jan. 29, 2014

I’ve finally figured something out. That we’re not supposed to be angry against women, as in, our anger against women is purely manufactured by men. And if we are angry, we’re angry against the male colonisation in her, not really her, though what happens is that we confuse it with the woman and hit on her instead.
This ‘embedded maleness’ or ‘incarnate male presence’ as Mary Daly called it, are insidious male ideologies that men have hammered into our psyche, like an anti-personnel landmine fastened inside us which explodes in contact of other women, so that women turn against us, instead of turning against men and feeling sorry or compassion for the pitiable state that men have put us in.
— Dec. 18, 2013

As Mary Daly says in Pure Lust, apparent microshifts in consciousness have the power to bring macrochanges in our reality, in women’s world and possibly the universe. The power yielded by moving ourselves and other women along with us is incredible. This is what I understand by the physics, or metaphysics of liberation — meta because it isn’t just a physical process, it transcends the physical realm. It reunites our male-fragmented parts and reintegrates ourselves to natural life movement.
— Oct. 16, 2013

Men have made science to be full of endnotes, dead-talk, lies and boredom. I will never thank Mary Daly enough for coining the word “academentia”. They are not interested in the truth, but interested in concocting fake evidence to support their lies and propaganda against women, to legitimise their totalitarian regime and political agenda of destroying the universe. . . .
One thing I’ve noticed is that one reason why writing felt so much like a chore is that the process was separated from the ends. Men focus everything on an end product, which is a dead object, a finished object, a square frame. It is very much based on ejaculation, or perhaps male notion of extinction. I read that from Mary Daly in Gynecology more than a year ago and she formulated this in a way I hadn’t really found words for. It’s not living work. University essay-writing was all about deadlines, dead ends. This is deeply alienating.
— April 13, 2013

So, science is a male conspiracy, “concocting fake evidence . . . against women,” as part of a “political agenda of destroying the universe,” and if women find writing a chore, this is because the idea of writing as a “finished object” is “based on ejaculation.”

Unnngh. Unnngh. Unnngh.

There — I’ve finished. Was it good for you? Now, fix me a sandwich.

 

Category: Feminism

Feminists and Their Vaginas; Also, Guess Who’s Talking About ‘Forced Procreation’?

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 90 Comments

Last night I teased this at the end of a post about two “empowered” feminists and their podcast about the men they’ve had sex with.

At Huffington Post, author Jenny Block wrote a column with the headline, “My Vagina Doesn’t Smell Like Shame“:

So, I’m going to just put this out there loud and proud. I love my pussy. I love her. And my lovers love her.
She looks like a pussy and smells like a pussy and she’s perfect in every way.

Do you want to read the whole thing? It’s 31 flavors of crazy, and was written in reaction to an even crazier column at Jezebel:

I know that every woman smells unique. I know that good and bad is simply a judgement. No. My fear is that he might be indoctrinated by the same system I am struggling to escape. And if I see my own insecurity mirrored in his eyes, I will feel once again the humiliation that I felt growing up. The humiliation of having a vagina and knowing that others know I have a vagina. Blood is evidence I have a vagina. Discharge is evidence I have a vagina. Camel Toe is evidence I have a vagina. And perhaps most insidious of all; smell is evidence … that I have a vagina.
My vagina smells like shame. Rancid and sickly. SHAME.
Since educating myself through my own personal project The Vagina Times, I’ve discovered so much about our systemic culture of shame which has prompted women to mutilate, bleach and douche their genitals to eliminate their natural shape, colour and smell. It’s truly heartbreaking. Because shame stems from someone else’s emotional repression. And their beliefs become internalized until we perpetuate them and shame our daughters.

Sure, you want to read that whole thing, too, because you haven’t yet been convinced that feminism is a psychiatric disorder.

Guys, try to resist any urge you may have to write a column, “My Scrotum Is Made of 100% Pure Awesomeness.” The Huffington Post isn’t interested, and you’ll only embarrass yourself.

Speaking of embarrassment, remember Radical Wind of “PIV is always rape, OK?” fame? Well, she’s been busy lately, cranking out more of her uniquely crazy feminist gibberish:

All forms of domination stem from and serve this purpose of maintaining men’s sexual access to women, globally: it is the first and final cause. There is no system separate from patriarchy because men are the sole rulers everywhere on the planet, and their tyranny is always and inherently sex-based, based on their sexual domination over women. Power-over is phallic and male, and men treat subordination as female and receptacle-shaped. . . . Being male, holding the rape-weapon between their legs, is what grants status in patriarchy, power to oppress and the privilege of being considered a subject. That is because at the very basic level, their oppressive power is both achieved and maintained with the use of their penis-weapon, through the raping, impregnation, capture and domestication of women globally.

Did I mention her feminist gibberish is uniquely crazy?

Women’s situation is more complex since we are oppressed by all the different classes of men who are the originators and subjects of patriarchal snooldom. They are the rapists. The multiple violations men put some women into serve a completely different purpose than men’s own class divides — or put in another way, both serve only one class interest: male supremacy. Racism, classism and division of labour between men strengthens men’s global rapist apparatus against women, while from women’s perspective it is a male divide-and-conquer tactic to reinforce our sexual subordination to men. . . .

(The “global rapist apparatus”? Please, tell us more!)

From men’s perspective, racism and classism is what provides male corporations with a continued flow of desperate, pliable male workers to exploit, who seek to escape the misery of their colonised country or impoverished region. It serves a capitalist and patriarchal interest because it supports the accumulation of wealth of a minority of men, which overall strengthens the patriarchal system. When we look at women, racism is what will provide all men with a continued flow of desperate, pliable women to be prostituted, raped and exploited in female subservient tasks. In this sense racism and classism benefits all men as it increases their ability to rape more women. Not to mention that all male economies are largely driven by trafficking in women, pimping, pornography and theft of women’s domestic work. . . .

(Isn’t the patriarchy amazing? It supplies us “with a continued flow of desperate, pliable women.” Just don’t tell my wife, OK?)

Groomed exclusively for breeding, married women are held captive in the man’s home and are either abducted, sold by the father or, more recently, manipulated or “seduced” into marriage and hetero-imprisonment. Her basic function will be to breed children until she dies from it, and if she doesn’t die after she has accomplished this horrific function, she may be killed, left to starve, or she will be used for domestic chores or to surveil other women’s children, or re-marry. If she’s lucky enough, she might be able to reduce the number of birthed children, survive her husband and enjoy slight freedom as a widow or spinster in the remaining years of her life.
Married women are evenly spread out across all male classes, nations and ethnic groups. All men of all groups conscript a majority of their daughters to marriage and forced procreation. All married women will be raped, forcibly impregnated and tortured to varying degrees according to the whim of their owner and more generally, according to the misogynistic customs of his male group. . . .

OK, that’s enough “hetero-imprisonment”/”forced procreation” paranoia, although she rants on for many more turgid paragraphs, ending with the promise that her next post “will focus on what it does when men inflict different degrees of violence between women.”

We can’t wait.

 

Category: Feminism

VIDEO: Harry Reid’s Koch Rant

Posted on | March 15, 2014 | 14 Comments

In a Senate floor speech Thursday, the Senate Majority Leader used the word “radical” 21 times in attacking the Left’s bogeymen:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday accused Republicans of holding up crucial assistance to Ukraine in order to protect the Koch brothers.
Reid tied the billionaire brothers who have bankrolled conservative causes to GOP demands that language delaying the Internal Revenue Service’s regulation of non-profit political advocacy groups be added to the Ukraine package. . . .
“It’s hard for me to comprehend how with a clear conscience they could say, ‘Ukrainians, we probably can’t help you because we’re trying to protect the Koch brothers,’” he said on Thursday. “And not only that, they’re saying to the American people that protecting the Koch brothers is more important than helping our country.”

 

Of the top 10 political contributors for the 2014 campaign cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, five represent Big Labor: The National Education Association (#2), the Carpenters and Joiners Union (#4), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (#5), AFL-CIO (#6) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (#10). Combined with the #1 donor — the Democratic Governors Association — these groups have contributed $21,717,266 to Democrats so far. By comparison, Koch Industries (#45) has spent $963,250, according to the same source.

So what’s with the Koch obsession? Allahpundit professed that he was mystified, but as Chris Good of ABC News explained, the Kochs are believed to have contributed to the Americans for Prosperity TV ad campaign targeting vulnerable Senate Democrats for their ObamaCare votes. I say the Kochs are “believed” to have done this because AFP is a 501(c)4 group and, as such, isn’t required to make its donors public. This drives Democrats nuts, because . . . well, because Democrats hate free speech, I guess.

Anyway, what Harry Reid and the other Koch-mongering Democrats are doing is (a) trying to justify the administration’s crackdown on 501(c)4 groups, (b) hoping to fire up Democrat donors, (c) seeking media sympathy, and (d) trying to establish a narrative that the reason they’re about to get their asses kicked in the mid-terms is because of “shadowy” right-wing mega-funders.

It’s an excuse, in other words — a scapegoat rationalization intended to shift the blame for Democrat political failures onto pre-demonized right-wing villains, so that when Republicans take over the Senate after the 2014 elections, Democrats can claim they were cheated, and assert that the new GOP majority is illegitimate.

 

Category: Harry Reid

Two Sluts Do ‘Empowering’ Podcast

Posted on | March 14, 2014 | 52 Comments

The headline at progressive blog Alternet:

“Guys We Fucked:” The Anti Slut-Shaming
Podcast That Everyone’s Talking About

Everybody is talking about this? Really? It’s a podcast, for crying out loud. But never mind that. Here’s the background:

Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson have had a lot of sex — and they’re not afraid to talk about it.
After Fisher went through a rough breakup, the two New York-based stand-up comedians, both in their mid-20s, decided to pool their collective un-shame about sex and create a podcast in which they interviewed men they’d slept with. The first episode of “Guys We F**ked, The Anti Slut-Shaming Podcast” was released in December. Since then, their audience has grown quickly, and the show now has over 200,000 subscribers on SoundCloud.
“We’re saying, have a lot of sex and be proud of it,” Hutchinson explains at the beginning of the debut episode.

Here’s Fisher:

I was going through a really tough breakup and I was trying to think of different ways I could better myself as a human being. I had this John Cusack-like idea that if I went back and talked to different people I had slept with or had relationships with, I could figure out if I was doing something wrong. That progressed into Krystyna and I making it into something a little more empowering and a little less personal.

Here’s Hutchinson:

Hate stems from fear and I think [people who engage in “slut-shaming” are] just afraid of a woman who is empowered and sexually in charge and in control of her own body. And I also think that some people were raised to feel this way because the people in their lives didn’t have a positive attitude towards women, and they don’t realize that it’s messed up.

How many reiterations of this claim — that men who disapprove of promiscuity are afraid of “empowered” women — must we endure, before the voice of reason gets a chance to interrupt?

If sex is merely a source of recreational pleasure — always this, and never anything more — then the only argument against promiscuity is the risk of venereal disease or unwanted pregnancy. As serious as those risks may be, the stronger argument against promiscuity requires us to understand sex in its natural function, as the means of prcreation, in the context of discussing the need to form enduring pair-bonds to provide secure upbringing for children.

Promiscuous people become habituated to having a variety of sexual partners, beginning and ending “relationships” as soon as they or their partner get bored with it. A person in their 20s who has been sexually active since their mid-teens, who has gone through a half-dozen “relationships,” as well as a number of casual short-term “hook-ups,” will have difficulty adjusting to married life, because the habit of continually seeking new partners is ingrained in their personality.

So a promiscuous person — however desirable they may be as a partner for recreational sex — is undesirable as a spouse, because of the likelihood that they will be adulterous. A guy doesn’t want to marry a slut because he figures she’ll become bored with monogamy and cheat on him. The prospect of marriage to such a woman entails a high risk that the unlucky guy’s future will include child-support payments and weekend visitation. Married women — and single women who would like to get married — disdain sluts because promiscuous women make unencumbered sex readily available, thus reducing the incentives for men to get married and stay married.

The dignity of all women, and the security of their children, is impaired by the shameless promiscuity of sluts. Sure, “it takes two to tango,” and men are responsible for their own actions, but women whose behavior fosters an expectation of the easy availability of sexual “hook-ups” are harming other women’s prospects for happiness.

Corinne Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson probably don’t discuss that perspective on “Guys We Fucked,” and I’ll also guess that amid all their chatter about how “empowering” it is to sleep around, they never discuss promiscuity as symptomatic of low self-esteem.

The correlation between promiscuity and emotional disorders is not random. You hear young single guys talking about this problem a lot: “Hey, I met this girl at a party and we hooked up right away. The sex was awesome at first, but we broke up after a couple of weeks because she turned out to be The Psycho Bitch From Hell.”

Gee, do you think that’s a coincidence?

Crazy women often have “issues” with substance abuse and difficulty maintaining relationships, so when you meet a drunk chick at a party or in a bar, and she’s eager to hook up with you, there is a non-zero chance that she’s The Psycho Bitch From Hell.

Women who use sex as a way of dealing with self-esteem problems usually wind up getting dumped by a series of users and losers, experiences that only reinforce their self-esteem deficits. They can talk all they want about how “empowered” they are. They’re not.

Feminism: The Ideology of Insanity.

 

Category: Feminism, Sex
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin