Goodbye: Britain Bans "Are You Beach Body Ready?" Ads, Citing "Sexism" Every day in every way feminism becomes more indistinguishable from Islamism -- which also strenuously objects to the uncovered female form. like a million other ads (I guess Caribbean resorts won't be able to advertise anymore, either?) -- unclean. Britain has of course gesticulated to the hysterical women and their board of advertising standards has now ruled the Protein World ads-- simply featuring a woman in a bikini,(I guess Caribbean resorts won't be able to advertise anymore, either?) -- unclean. A feminist wrote an article in (of course) The Guardian that sparked so much hysteria among A feminist wrote an article in (of course) The Guardian that sparked so much hysteria among the unmedicated neurotics of the feminist movement. In that piece, she likened pictures of women in bikinis to rape, and also, capitalism to rape. Because, as Instapundit said, everything feminists don't like is like rape. In that piece, she likened pictures of women in bikinis to rape, and also, capitalism to rape. Because, as Instapundit said, everything feminists don't like is like rape. Nice mixture of SJW and Marxism here. pic.twitter.com/fEs6HnPFQc — John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) April 30, 2015

I'm going to get personal here -- because it's time to get personal. I'm going to get personal here -- because it's time to get personal. It is pretty obvious what is driving this. Sexually insecure, unattractive women, who feel under-valued in the sexual market, are using simple and brutish strategies to bring down their Higher-Valued Rivals and thus increase, relatively, their own sexual desirability. It is pretty obvious what is driving this. Sexually insecure, unattractive women, who feel under-valued in the sexual market, are using simple and brutish strategies to bring down their Higher-Valued Rivals and thus increase, relatively, their own sexual desirability. It's Science. It's Science. Nice mixture of SJW and Marxism here. pic.twitter.com/fEs6HnPFQc — John Ekdahl (@JohnEkdahl) April 30, 2015

About a year ago I read an alleged feminist "thinker" writing at, I think, Salon, who actually wondered -- and just wondered; she had no conclusions about the matter -- why she felt hostile towards the Sexualization of Scarlett Johanson in the Avengers move, but, get this, actually enjoyed seeing Chris Evans sexualized. About a year ago I read an alleged feminist "thinker" writing at, I think, Salon, who actually wondered -- and just wondered; she had no conclusions about the matter -- why she felt hostile towards the Sexualization of Scarlett Johanson in the Avengers move, but, get this, She didn't know why. She didn't know why. If she weren't a narcissistic lunatic incapable of probing her own biases and insecurities, she would have realized that Chris Evans is, for her, a sexual object, and thus she enjoys seeing him shirtless and looking sexy, whereas Scarlett Johanson is a sexual rival, and she is thus programmed to feel jealousy towards her, and further programmed to want to bring her down, to hobble her, to put her on the sexual sidelines, so that she can woo Chris Evans without the ridiculously hot Scarlett Johanson stealing him away. If she weren't a narcissistic lunatic incapable of probing her own biases and insecurities, she would have realized that Chris Evans is, for her, a sexual, and thus she enjoys seeing him shirtless and looking sexy, whereas Scarlett Johanson is a sexual, and she is thus programmed to feel jealousy towards her, and further programmed to want to, to hobble her, to put her on the sexual sidelines, so that she can woo Chris Evans without the ridiculously hot Scarlett Johanson stealing him away. This was obvious. Evans is the prize; Johanson is the competition. This was obvious. Evans is the prize; Johanson is But she was such a childlike, insecure, untutored, uncultured mind she simple explanation never occurred to her. The explanations she was looking for were the ones that flattered her further, that told her that she was Objectively Right to enjoy a shirtless Chris Evans, whereas Men were Objectively Wrong to enjoy a shot of ScarJo's butt. But she was such a childlike, insecure, untutored, uncultured mind she simple explanation never occurred to her. The explanations she was looking for were the ones that, that told her that she was Objectively Right to enjoy a shirtless Chris Evans, whereas Men were Objectively Wrong to enjoy a shot of ScarJo's butt. We are increasingly surrounded by bitter, tantrum-prone, unsocialized sociopathic children for whom every hurt and ever failure is cause for spitting and biting. We are increasingly surrounded by bitter, tantrum-prone, unsocialized sociopathicfor whom every hurt and ever failure is cause for spitting and biting. Now here's where I get personal. If these monsters are determined to attack everyone else, they invite such behavior in return. I think society is much better when things are not personal, and in which people are given a little latitude to pursue their own desires, whether you approve or not. Now here's where I get personal. If these monsters are determined to attack everyone else, they invite such behavior in return. I think society is much better when things are not personal, and in which people are given a little latitude to pursue their own desires, whether you approve or not. But the shrieking harpies are unattractive and bitter women, who are also stupid and lacking in all self-reflection and thus incapable in understanding why they feel the volcanic torrents of black emotion they feel, and they've pretty much forced us to stop being nice and start being real. But the shrieking harpies are unattractive and bitter women, who are alsoand lacking in all self-reflection and thus incapable in understanding why they feel the volcanic torrents of black emotion they feel, and they've pretty much forced us to stop being nice and start being real. So my point is: Google images for the author of the Guardian piece, a Ms. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, and tell me the sexual behavioral evolution explanation for her embarrassing behavior is wrong. So my point is: Google images for the author of the Guardian piece, a Ms. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett, and tell me the sexual behavioral evolution explanation for her embarrassing behavior is wrong.

Let Me Make This Clear: I am not one of those idiot men who worship hot women who are obviously out of their league. I am not one of those idiot men who worship hot women who are obviously out of their league. I am an average-looking guy. I like average-looking women. Very attractive women completely ignore me, which isn't a fun feeling. I am an average-looking guy. I like average-looking women. Very attractive women completely ignore me, which isn't a fun feeling. So I am predipsosed to liking medium-attractive women, and sort of resenting very attractive women, to the extent I think about them at all. So I am predipsosed to liking medium-attractive women, and sort of resenting very attractive women, to the extent I think about them at all. But being the underdog -- being the one who is not overly gifted with advantages-- does not give one the right to indulge her Inner Asshole, her Inner Bully, her Inner Narcissistic Monster. And that is what is going on with these Piranha Princesses. They've felt left-out and wallflowerish their whole lives, and now it's time, they think, for some payback. And that is what is going on with these Piranha Princesses. They've felt left-out and wallflowerish their whole lives, and now it's time, they think, for some I have sympathy for wallflowers (being one myself, especially so). I have sympathy for wallflowers (being one myself, especially so). But I do not have sympathy for narcissistic lunatics and vindictive bitches. But I do not have sympathy for narcissistic lunatics and vindictive bitches. Posted by: Ace at 11:58 AM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat