Conservative Hideout 2.0 Rotating Header Image

Being a Slut Isn’t Successful, and why the Feminists Hate the Truth

Share

feministtammy

If you’ve been following the culture wars, you will know that part of the Tammie’s political agenda is the promotion of promiscuity.  Just Google “slut walks,” and you get what I mean.  The core suggestion is that being a slut is empowering, and any criticism if said sluttery is to be attacked.  Also, there’s apparently a vagina given right to free contraception and abortions.  Essentially, the feminizis tell us to stay out of their vagina’s, yet they want us to pay for the upkeep of said vaginas.  But, I digress.

Stacey McCain published a post last week that blows the Tammy’s Slut agenda away.  Here are some excerpts…

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).

OK, let’s look at this logically.  Can we not ask the following…

1.  Do men have causal sex with less attractive or desirable women, while they are looking for a more attractive, more trustworthy woman to marry?

2.  If a man wants to marry, why is he going to marry the slut, who has had sex with who knows how many guys before, and therefore has a greater chance of cheating at some point?  I mean, ladies, if you married a guy that slept with a hundred women, wouldn’t YOU be concerned about cheating?  (I would throw in”what is good for the goose,” but the feminazis don’t give a damn about equality or fairness.)

3.  Does that mean that the “spinsters” and “old maids” of old have simply been replaced with the “old skanks” of the now?

4.  And, in the end, does #3 actually make a difference?

So, being a slut seems to not bring any benefits, but Stacey has more on that…

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. (Emphasis added due to massive win)

So then, it seems that the feminist line that it is good, if not preferable, to be a slut is not quite living up as advertised.  Then again, what in liberalism does?  But, in the event that reality intervenes in liberal plans, at least they can smear anyone that points out their abysmal failure.

Here are the findings of scientific research, according to Stacey…

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.

OK, did you get that?  Thin, attractive women have less partners, and form more exclusive relationships.  On the contrary, more attractive men have more sex.  Does this mean that men sleep with sluts, but form lasting relationships with attractive women?  Oh you bet!   Then again, people have been talking about “loose women” since forever.  And, it appears that no matter how much feminists promote sluttery, or have little “slut walks,” men will only use them for their readily available orifices and leave them when a more desirable woman comes along.  As if feminists needed another reason to hate men?

And, let the hate begin!

Share
  • http://www.manhattaninfidel.com Infidel de Manahatta

    Women have been sold a false bill of goods by the Feminist intelligentsia. The Intelligentsia who are usually of higher economic standing.

Switch to our mobile site