Category: PUA

Categories
alpha males bad boys douchebaggery heartiste I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA rape jokes that's not funny!

Heartiste: Funny like a clown

Heartiste: A sad clown

Always hilarious: painfully unfunny dudes explaining how women just aren’t funny. Over on Chateau Heartiste, the Heartiste formerly known as Roissy drops some (pseudo) SCIENCE on us all:

[C] hicks dig male status, dominance and personality as much as, or more than, they dig male looks. Men, on the other hand, dig beauty first and foremost, and a woman’s comedic timing, however it might make a man laugh, won’t stir his schnitzel if she’s a dog.

Since women don’t see a benefit from humor in the competition to attract men, their sex, on average when compared to men, has not evolved a strong cortical humor module. Women are better equipped to appreciate humor than they are to produce humor.

Apparently, if you use the same words that scientists use – like “cortical” and “module” – that makes it true!

But there is more to this Old Misogynist’s Tale. As Heartiste explains, it’s cruel humor that women appreciate most of all — in their lady regions. In other words, chicks like dicks:

[W]omen become sexually aroused by men who expertly wield the soulkilling shiv of sadism. …

Cruelty that is delivered with supreme confidence, bemused detachment, and eviscerating precision is catnip to women’s kitties.

Get it? Kitties = pussies = VAGINAS.

Ba-dump-tssh! Heartiste is on a roll.

So let’s see some examples of the sort of masterfully eviscerating humor that makes the ladies weak in their knees and gets their “kitties” excited. (Note: By kitties I am, like Heartiste, referring to vaginas. Exciting a woman’s actual kitties is better done with shiny objects and mouse-shaped toys.)

Anyway, here are some of Heartiste’s examples of cruel humor at its most exquisite, which he has helpfully rendered in dialogue form:

Me: Sweetcheeks, look. That bum just winked at you. He wants to take you back to his cardboard box. [waving at bum] Hi, bum!

Her: [struggling to conceal a grin] Shh, stop that. Stop waving. You’re horrible.

Truly, bum-mockery at its finest.

But he’s only getting started:

Me: You want to take a bus? Forget it. [nodding in direction of obese woman] She ate it.

Her: [looking heavenward] Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.

Aw yeah. Suggesting that a fat person has just eaten something comically large: comedy gold!

After some further jests on the topics of male boobs (hmm), the size of black men’s cocks, and raping the disabled (yes, really), our hero is in like Flynn, well on his way to all-caps “TRIUMPHAL SEX.”

The way it will usually go down is like this: You revel in your cruelty. She reacts with manufactured disapproval, often stifling laughter. Her vagina moistens. A wave of hidden shame releases a continuous flow of blood to her vaginal walls, maintaining her in a semi-aroused state all day long. Later that night, the floodgates open and you slip in like a lubed eel.

Yipes. That is about as erotic as Gilbert Gottfried reading from 50 Shades of Grey.

I’m pretty sure the only reason Heartiste can maintain his belief that women can’t do cruel humor themselves is that he’s never heard what they say about him once he leaves the room.

Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny patriarchy PUA racism reactionary bullshit violence

Does Manosphere Blogger Vox Day Really Support the Murder and Mutilation of Women?

Most women, it is fair to say, don’t want to be deprived of education; they don’t want to be considered little more than baby-making machines; and they don’t want “independent” women to be maimed or murdered.

But according to the influential manosphere blogger Vox Day, women who object to any of this just don’t know what’s good for them. In one of the most repellant manosphere rants I’ve run across yet, Vox attempts to rebut PZ Myers’ critiques of evolutionary psychology with a series of bizarre and hateful assertions about women, offering his own “scientific” rationales for keeping women down. Is this all somehow satire on his part? He certainly seems sincere.

TRIGGER WARNING for all that follows; Vox explicitly defends the maiming and murder of women.

Vox starts out by arguing that depriving women of education makes solid evolutionary sense:

[E]ducating women is strongly correlated with reducing their disposition and ability to reproduce themselves. Educating them tends to make them evolutionary dead ends. … 40% of German women with college degrees are childless. Does PZ seriously wish to claim that not reproducing is intrinsically beneficial to women?

Instead of being educated, Vox goes on to argue, girls should be married off young so they can start popping out babies:

[R]aising girls with the expectation that their purpose in life is to bear children allows them to pursue marriage at the age of their peak fertility, increase the wage rates of their prospective marital partners, and live in stable, low-crime, homogenous societies that are not demographically dying. It also grants them privileged status, as they alone are able to ensure the continued survival of the society and the species alike. Women are not needed in any profession or occupation except that of child-bearer and child-rearer, and even in the case of the latter, they are only superior, they are not absolutely required.

Next, he defends the practice of throwing acid in the face of “independent” women:

[F]emale independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability. If PZ has turned against utilitarianism or the concept of the collective welfare trumping the interests of the individual, I should be fascinated to hear it.

He moves on to honor killings, arguing that they too are good for women, because

female promiscuity and divorce are strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills, from low birth and marriage rates to high levels of illegitimacy.

He offers a similar rationale for female genital mutilation, before launching into this bizarre racist attack on abortion rights:

[F]ar more women are aborted than die as a result of their pregnancies going awry. The very idea that letting a few women die is worse than killing literally millions of unborn women shows that PZ not only isn’t thinking like a scientist, he’s quite clearly not thinking rationally at all. If PZ is going to be intellectually consistent here, then he should be quite willing to support the abortion of all black fetuses, since blacks disproportionately commit murder and 17x more people could be saved by aborting black fetuses than permitting the use of abortion to save the life of a mother. 466 American women die in pregnancy every year whereas 8,012 people died at the hands of black murderers in 2010.

Vox wants “girls” – presumably teenagers — to be married off young and start popping out babies. Yet in his mind female fetuses are “unborn women.”

Despite Vox Day’s repellent ideas about women – and his proud racism – he’s an influential figure in the manosphere, mentioned approvingly and regularly cited by others who present themselves as more moderate voices. It may not be a shock that the reactionary antifeminist blogger Dalrock includes Vox in his blogroll, and cites his work with approval (see here and here for examples). But, astoundingly, he’s also regularly cited approvingly by antifeminist “relationship expert” Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (see here, here, and here). And she has even written at least one guest post on Vox’s “game blog” Alpha Game.

At this point I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked by any of this.  But I still am.

Categories
antifeminism evil fat fatties evil women grandiosity misogyny narcissism patriarchy PUA your time will come

Ferdinand Bardamu to fat chicks: don’t make me want you!

Syndrome, the king of monologuing.

As you may be aware, Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has taken a brave and bold stance against “fat chicks.” That in itself is not very surprising, or interesting, really. But in a recent post he offers a take on the fat acceptance movement that betrays an strange bit of … paranoia, maybe?

After a few uninspired swipes at “fat-assed she-beasts and big-titted blubberboys” and the “femilosers” on Tumblr who recently batted around an anti-“fat chick” post from his blog, he makes this strange pronouncement:

These histrionic little girls are full of it. They don’t want fat acceptance — they want to FORCE men to be attracted to their endless rolls of fat and their cheesy crotch creases. Fortunately, their emotional delicateness will ensure that they will fail. We are the Patriarchs, and we’re coming to take back what’s ours. Beware.

Ferdy, don’t worry. The fat chicks of the world aren’t going to FORCE you to lust after them, and wouldn’t even if they could. I haven’t conducted a poll or anything, but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them. Heck, I’m pretty sure most skinny women would prefer that you not be attracted to them either. They really don’t want your lucky charms.

Also, the weird little bit at the end there, the thing about “coming to take back what’s ours?” In The Incredibles, they called that “monologuing.” I don’t know quite what motivates so many manopshereians to want to talk like comic book supervillains. But it is sort of adorable.

Categories
alpha males antifeminism antifeminst women MGTOW misogyny MRA PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts whores

Susan “Chartbuster” Walsh does it again

Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.

Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”

The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t  automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.

So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.

Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.

Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness  — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:

I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.

Sassy6519 agreed:

That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.

And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!

As Walsh put it in a comment:

The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.

Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.

Ian Ironwood agreed with her analysis, more or less, but urged his fellow dudes to exploit the situation for their own advantage:

Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.

Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.

Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.

Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:

[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:

“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”

And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.

You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …

If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)

You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.

Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.

EDITED TO ADD: I added a quote from Walsh.

Categories
douchebaggery men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny PUA

PUAs invade OkCupid!

Honestly, this would freak me the fuck out too.

Over on Buzzzfeed, a couple of interesting pieces on the fine art of online pickup artistry.

Kelly Bourdet looks at some of the online PUA gurus and their teachings, noting that

Online pick-up artistry has taken the original aims of IRL pick-up — to develop general tactics and techniques for attracting and bedding women— one step further. One dehumanizing step further. Now, instead of “peacocking” (wearing gaudy outfits to demonstrate Alpha status) in bars and using tired negs, we have them deconstructing every aspect of online persona and communication to create sleek, marketing packages of human beings to sell to one another.

In an even more entertaining companion piece, Ouiser Boudreaux (AKA the Annals of Online Dating gal) reports on some of the actual terrible things these online PUAs write to women in an attempt to “neg” them into their IRL beds.  Like “nice headband, bitch,” or “Lol, you look like a space commando.” Or this little passive-aggressive masterpiece:

You nearly have a perfect lack of grace. What happens when you realize only the also ran hotties slum it in brooklyn? Somebody who says they’re not good at being surface and rattles off a list of authors read mostly in high school english classes is nothing but surface. Your profile is among the most trite and cliche i’ve come across. which is a compliment of sorts, though keep in mind, you’re not in kansas anymore. You know who else won’t deal with a narcissist? just look in the mirror to find the answer: another narcissist.

None of these worked, in case you’re wondering.

Categories
antifeminism evil fat fatties grandiosity homophobia manginas men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny narcissism penises PUA reactionary bullshit shaming tactics worst writing in the history of the universe your time will come

Get in mah belly, Heartiste!

Apparently the Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy has discovered our little blog:

Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.

Uh oh! I guess he’s not a fan.

The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel.

U mad, bro?

Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit.

Dude, I don’t know if you know this, but most Americans are, you know, fat. WE ARE LEGION!

Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit.

This has got to be the most ridiculously verbose version of “yeah, well, you’re a fatty” I’ve ever seen.

Oh, but it seems like we’re all about to get our big comeuppance:

The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.

Yeah, except that I’m pretty sure that “I hate you, you fat fatty” isn’t a Truth that matters a lot to anyone but you and your maladjusted fanboys.

Also, dude, you call yourself “Heartiste.” There is literally nothing more dopey than that.

Categories
antifeminism disgusting women dozens of upvotes girl germs I am making a joke lying liars men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misandry misogyny MRA PUA pussy cartel reddit sex sexy robot ladies shaming tactics shit that never happened sluts

Let’s shame some virgins!

NOTE: THAT HEADLINE IS A JOKE. IT’S APRIL FOOL’S DAY.

In today’s edition of “Make Shit Up About Man Boobz,” we have this highly upvoted comment from the Men’s Rights subreddit attacking me (us?) for all the evil virgin shaming we supposedly do around here.

 

The total ridiculousness of this comment is fairly obvious. But I would like to take a moment to clarify a few things.

Being a virgin, or celibate? Not inherently funny.

Being a virgin, or someone who has had literally one sexual encounter with a woman ever, and writing post after post about how evil and icky vaginas are in an attempt to get other men to swear off women forever – that’s pretty funny. That would be a bit like me writing a travel guide to Denmark, or Albania, or any other place I’ve never been to.

Having trouble getting a date? Not inherently funny.

Having trouble getting a date because you’re a loathsome tool who hates women? Funny.

Using a sex toy? Not inherently funny.

Dudes pontificating about how sex toys and sex robots will soon make icky real women obsolete? That shit is fucking hilarious.

Also, sex toys themselves? Yes, they can be funny. I mean, the legendary Fleshlight is a disembodied vagina/mouth/asshole-replacement in the form of a giant clunky flashlight-shaped thing. That’s sort of  funny. Attaching this giant clunky thing to an iPad so you can pretend that the iPad (or at least an image on it) is giving you a blowjob? That’s comedy gold!

Here are some other sex toys that are hilarious and/or seriously disturbing, courtesy of Scary Sextoy Friday, perhaps the world’s greatest blog. (All links are NSFW.)

Vibrators shaped like Santa Claus.

A dildo designed to look like poop.

Any sex toy with a mustache

Anal Ring Toss

This … thing.

This … other … thing.

Sorry. I got carried away with the links. That blog is like crack.

Categories
alpha males bad boys creepy idiocy kitties masculinity misogyny PUA shit that never happened

Heartiste: Totally dominate your woman by farting in bed and pretending to kill her cat

Cartman demonstrating male dominance and creativity.

You know how in Cosmo they have all those little guides on how to spice up your relationships? Well, now the douchebag PUA guru Heartiste has helpfully prepared a guide of his own.

[T]hanks to the wonders of game, men can limit their relationship energy requirements while maximizing the impact each unit of spent energy has on women’s interest levels. In layman’s terms, men can easily spice up relationships (and dates) with almost no effort by employing the drive-by tease.

Here are a few of his tricks. I am not making these up. These are actual suggestions as to ways to “spice up” relationships written by a man who is reportedly in his forties. He starts off fairly mild:

Flush the toilet when she’s in the shower.

Then he starts getting mean:

Put a “pinch my butt” post-it note on her back as she’s heading out for work.

Slip her car into neutral when she’s driving. (Note: not recommended on women with exceptionally bad driving skills.)

The rest of the list is a mixture of the stupid:

Paint a picture of her. With great fanfare, unveil a stick figure drawing.

Replace her cosmetics with crayons.

The puerile:

Draw smiley faces or penises on her tampons.

Honk her tits. Make loud honking noise. Bonus points if you use an air horn.

Dutch oven. Shower oven. Car oven.

The surreal:

Put her panties on her cat (Don’t put them on the dog if the dog is yours. There are some lines not meant to be crossed.)

And the just plain assholish:

Pretend to throw her cat out the window. (A full throwing motion accompanied by frantic mewing will boost dramatic effect.)

Place a giant stuffed animal or clown doll in bed, facing her. When she wakes up, she’ll freak.

Heartiste then explains the SCIENCE behind all this idiocy:

The drive-by tease is, typically, the non-verbal equivalent of the cocky/funny neg. … The DBT subliminally asserts male dominance as well as creativity, both of which are catnip to women. Dominance assertion is telegraphed in any act where the subtext is “I don’t care if you’re offended by this.”

Really? Drawing a smiley face on her tampon “asserts male dominance?” Farting demonstrates creativity?

In any case, I have a few suggestions for women whose boyfriends actually do any of this shit in an attempt to show what awesome dudes they are:

Take a shit in his underwear drawer. Claim it was the dog, even if you don’t have a dog.

Throw his Xbox360 out the window.  (A full throwing motion accompanied by frantic mewing will boost dramatic effect.)

Make him a BBQ sandwich, using menstrual blood instead of BBQ sauce.

Leave him.

Actually, you’d probably do best just to skip directly to that last one.

Categories
alpha males bad boys beta males creepy evil women I'm totally being sarcastic it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny precious bodily fluids PUA sex vaginas

Betamaxipad

He is totally going to score.

Beta males! Do you want to score with the pretty ladies? The Heartiste formerly known as Roissy has a suggestion for you: figure out when your favorite pretty lady is having cotton pony rodeo time – sorry,  her period — and make your move then! Apparently, according to SCIENCE, that’s when the pretty ladies will be most receptive to your pathetic, hamhanded beta advances.

Let’s let the master explain:

[D]uring the three weeks a woman is not ovulating (and especially during her menstruation) her desire is shifted toward beta provider males. … To put this in the simplest terms possible, a woman who is hot enough to bang greater alphas will subconsciously gravitate to lesser alphas as her ovaries power down for three weeks. A plain jane who makes herself receptive to greater betas when ovulating will subconsciously begin to warm to the attentions of lesser betas reading her poetry after her hormones stabilize post-ovulation.

But fellas, don’t actually expect her to stoop to having sex with the likes of you.

I don’t mean she is suddenly going to be attracted to the opposite of the alpha males she craves when egging out. Instead, I mean she will become more indulgent of men who are somewhat more beta than the last alpha male she banged, or wished to bang, when she was ovulating. …

[B]eta males are not going to suddenly see action for three weeks with the women who aren’t ovulating. What they might see is more receptiveness — more openness — to their sloppy, guileless flirtations from those women.

And if by some weird miracle you beta dudes are actually dating a woman, Heartiste is a little more optimistic for you:

[E]njoy your two or three tepid bangs during the three weeks you are reasonably safe from the depredations of your sweet girlfriend’s behavioral modification egg assault and any interloper alpha males who might be conveniently available to her. No, you won’t ever get her to scream “choke the living shit out of me and plunge your divine cock into my tight puckered asshole as far as it’ll go until I’m bleeding tears of exquisite pain ps I saved my incredibly lubricated pussy all for you” like Olivia Munn, but at least you get to wrap up your two minute tenderly administered intimacy sessions scraping your beta peen along her dry vagina walls with twenty minute cuddleramas and a bloated chickflix queue.

Oy. I can’t really keep up the sarcasm after that. I just feel bad that the genuinely charming and hilarious Olivia Munn (no sarcasm here) has been pulled into Heartiste’s strange fantasy world.

Categories
actual activism antifeminism armageddon atlas shrugged crackpottery creepy douchebaggery hypocrisy I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert it's science! misogyny oppressed men PUA racism reactionary bullshit sluts the c-word transphobia

Gucci Little Piggy: Sandra Fluke is a lesbian pirate because one of her fingers is longer than the other

Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.

Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:

Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:

I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history.  It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.

Go on.

Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today.  Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is:  a pirate

Uh, what?

Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.

Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.

Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:

[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.

Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:

her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index.  It’s almost as long as her middle finger.  In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness.  So, yeah, pirate fits.

Thanks, Chuck.

Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.

Stickman writes:

forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.

Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.

SOBL1 adds:

As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.

Did he mention he went to CORNELL?

One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:

This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).

Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.

Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.

Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:

When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed

It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.”  The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.

All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?

–

I’d better put that blinking

gif here, just in case.