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.

 

 


Category: Feminism, Rush Limbaugh, Sex

Corrupt Thought Studies, Holder Edition

Posted on | February 9, 2013 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

The idea that Constitutional rights are ‘entitlements’ moves them from being constants that the government can’t touch to variables, which can be expanded or contracted by fiat. Clip below the fold for autoplay reasons. Read more

Category: Eric Holder

Why Twitter Can Be A Hoot

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

Of course we’re referring to:

And then, if you haven’t seen the Literal Version:

Category: humor

Teenage Sex in the News (Also: Questions the SPLC Doesn’t Want You to Ask)

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 19 Comments

Item One: A judge in England refused to impose a prison sentence for statutory rape on an 18-year-old man who had sex with “a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook” because Adil Rashid “went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.”

So, basically, if you’re a Muslim guy in England, seventh-graders are fair game. “Go for it,” says Judge Michael Stokes.

Item Two: Laws requiring parental consent for underage girls to get abortions “reduce the minor abortion rate by 18.7 percent . . . In states with parental consent laws, the abortion rate declines by 23.1 percent for 17-year-olds, by 19.9 percent for 16-year-olds, and by 16.6 percent for 15-year-olds.”

No wonder liberals oppose these laws: Not only do parental consent laws reduce the abortion rate, but such laws may actually permit parents to discover that their underage daughters are having sex, which in some cases would actually be a crime, so that these laws could result in sexual predators going to prison. And this might be a bad thing for certain New Jersey Democrats.

Item Three: Zack Ford of Think Progress is very interested in gay rights and also, middle-schoolers.

Well, who are we to judge? I mean, there’s nothing suspicious — certainly nothing creepy — about gay progressives taking such a keen interest in what seventh-graders are taught about sexual orientation.

Item Four: Zack Ford of Think Progress is very interested in gay rights and also, Boy Scouts.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Item Five: Kelly Watson, 34, was a teacher at a California school that “serves adolescent boys with emotional and learning challenges.” She pleaded guilty to having sex with a 17-year-old student and was put on probation. She is pregnant with her teenage lover’s child.

It’s California. What some people may consider weird — and possibly even wrong — is just an “alternative lifestyle” in California.

Item Six: Even in California, they have to draw the line somewhere: Samuel Gonzales was sentenced to 157 years in prison for a series of sex crimes “including a 13-year-old girl he impregnated and raped her again three weeks after she’d given birth. . . . Gonzalez’ crimes go back to the early 1990s, but were not investigated until 2011 when a 19-year-old female relative came forward to authorities claiming Gonzalez had fondled her breast. The young woman’s sister told investigators Gonzalez began abusing her when she was 8 years old, noting by the time she was 11 it was happening daily.”

Unlike Kelly Watson, Samual Gonzales isn’t a blonde school teacher. She gets probation. He gets 157 years in prison.

Item Seven: Why did the Southern Poverty Law Center want gay progressive Floyd Corkins to kill interns at the Family Research Council? “Corkins admitted that he wanted to ‘kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard,'” says Anna Maria Hoffman, 20, who was terrorized by the SPLC-inspired assassin that day last August. “I was one of those people who could have been his victim. I was on the 6th floor of the FRC building working on my pro-life internship assignments. I could have lost my life.”

Of course, the SPLC denies that its “Kill Map” of conservatives was intended to result in Floyd Corkins terrorizing Anna Maria Hoffman. Just like other gay progressives would deny that their fanatical interest in middle-schoolers and Boy Scouts is anything other than an egalitarian concern for social justice. And the only reason Robert Menendez took those trips to the Dominican Republic was to enjoy the sunshine.

Item Eight: North Carolina State University spent $304.69 to purchase butt plugs, vibrators, dildos and other sexual devices as prizes for a “Dirty Bingo” event. NCSU official Lauryn Collier says the purpose of “Dirty Bingo” is to “find ‘innovative’ ways to discuss sexual health on the campus … The certified educators plan to use some of the items … to demonstrate healthy sex practices.”

Does the phrase “certified educators” inspire . . . skepticism? Suspicion? An urge to cross-check the names of these “educators” against the national sex-offender registry? See, here’s the old-fashioned common-sense reaction to things like this:

“Wait a minute — these freaks are so interested in talking about sex with college kids that they went through some kind of special program to get ‘certified’ to do this? And then this ‘education’ takes the form of giving the kids dildos and buttplugs and lubricant? Because this is necessary to teach kids about ‘sexual health’? Get away from my daughter, you perverts, or I’ll call the cops.”

Suppressing this kind of common-sense reaction is what political correctness is all about. Old-fashioned common sense is categorized as “hate,” so that everybody is afraid to raise any objection to this kind of stuff, and next thing you know, Zack Ford is taking your seventh-grade Scouts on a camping trip with a knapsack full of Rohypnol.

You’re not even allowed to make jokes like that anymore. It is now considered “hate” to suggest that any gay man has ever had any sexual interest in anyone a day younger than 18, or to imply — as Justice Antonin Scalia did in his dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision — that the logic of the “gay rights” movement could lead to the legitimization of other forms of sexual deviance:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision . . .  The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.”

Two years ago, there was an uproar over a Baltimore gathering of “mental health professionals” who wanted to “de-stigmatize” pedophilia and have it removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s listing of mental disorders. As I pointed out at the time, the president of the organization behind the conference was a self-confessed “boy lover” named Richard Kramer who had written:

“We need to confront the stigmatization, demonization, and stereotyping that exists due simply to our attraction to children or adolescents, regardless of our behavior.”

Kramer established the Male Homosexual Attraction to Minors Information Center in 2003, and no one can accuse Kramer of representing a larger threat without risk of being labeled a “hater.” Yet if we see matters drifting steadily in a certain direction, are we wrong to ask whether the effect of certain arguments is identical with the intent of those arguments? That is to say, isn’t it common sense to suspect that some “unintended consequences” are actually intended?

Well, political correctness cannot tolerate common sense as a basis for objecting to the progressive agenda. Start asking too many questions about their agenda, and the Southern Poverty Law Center will designate you as a “hate” group, with your own star on the SPLC “Kill Map” and — tut, tut — it sure would be a bad thing if any crazed progressive fanatic took that designation seriously and decided to shoot you.





 

Category: Abortion, Crime, Culture, Sex

Dr. Carson Sees Whittle’s 19 Minutes, Raises Him 8

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 12 Comments

by Smitty

I enjoyed Bill Whittle’s speech immensely. Just a great outing in terms of rhetoric and editing.

On the other hand, with one camera angle and a live audience that includes #OcccupyResoluteDesk, Benjamin Carson delivers a truly inspirational outing:

Of particular interest is the body language from #OcccupyResoluteDesk. He is NOT laughing at the jokes, which are good, and does offer one of his patented near-gesture eye scratches at one point. He does NOT applaud when the rest of the audience does, offering the merest hint of a golf clap at the tail end of the speech.

As you hear Dr. Carson relate his biographical details, you get the impression that he is everything #OccupyResoluteDesk would be, were BHO not an abject fraud. Look at Obama alternate between an Olympian pose and a scowl through the speech. Truly, that body language offers a hilarious subtext to a speech that is already a fine bit of work.

Thank you Dr. Carson. May the Almighty bless you and your efforts. The question is why the good Doctor has not been dragged onto a ballot yet.

For a chaser, enjoy this post by The Anchoress, via Instapundit.

Category: Uncategorized

Don’t Worry About That Asteroid Hurtling Toward Earth, Say the Scientific Experts Who Are Always Right About Everything

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 29 Comments

They’re scientists, after all, which means they’re never wrong, so ignorant laymen like us should have complete confidence in their judgment:

Anyone happening to glance towards the heavens in a week’s time and glimpses a 50-metre-long lump of rock hurtling ominously through the skies need not panic.
Although it will pass closer to us than any asteroid has for the past 15 years — closer even than the TV satellites that girdle the planet — Nasa insists that 2012 DA14 will miss Earth by a good 17,100 miles (27,520km).
“No Earth impact is possible,” said Donald Yeomans, an astronomer with the US space agency.

In other words: PANIC! It’s going to destroy us all!

 

Category: Science

Yes, Indeed: Amazon Kindle 8.9″ HD Kicks the Apple iPad’s Overpriced Ass

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 9 Comments

You can click right here and order an Amazon Kindle 8.9-inch HD tablet for $299 now. I feel it necessary to point this out, not only because I would collect a small commission on that sale — although that is certainly incentive enough — but also because every sale helps diminish the phony prestige of those insufferable Apple snobs we all hate:

Amazon has launched a new video ad for the Kindle HD 8.9, and it’s not beating around the bush this time. The ad is a direct comparison with Apple’s iPad, claiming the two devices’ screens are virtually identical, while the price for the Kindle is much lower.
“This is the iPad with Retina display,” says the text of the ad. “And this is the new Kindle Fire HD with an 8.9-inch display … You may not be able to tell the difference. But your wallet definitely can,” the ad concludes.
The difference in price is, indeed, substantial. The Kindle Fire HD 8.9″ starts at $299, while the iPad starts at $499.

Obviously, that’s the only incentive you need to click right here and order an Amazon Kindle 8.9-inch HD tablet for $299 now, although the fact that I’ll collect a small commission on the sale is a factor that might further incentivize your purchase.

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM
Because Free Competition Works, and Apple Sucks

 

Category: Amazon

Soopermexican Mocks Serious Academics With PhDs In 17th Century Belgian Lesbian Studies

Posted on | February 8, 2013 | 15 Comments

by Smitty

This is an unacceptable New Tone violation:

This blog stands by its firm commitment to the expansion of all forms of human knowledge, from “Non-Linear Anti-Rational Propaganda Math” to “Aztec Heart Surgery Obsidian Tool Art History” to “Recreational Kitchen Chemistry Stimulants”.

Having rejected traditional wisdom in favor of Progress, the only way out of this ‘unexpected’ Dark Age is Forward! to knowledge.

Won’t somebody halt Soopermexican’s reign of mockery?

Category: Blogging
« 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