Women Will Poison Themselves for Love
March 8, 2013
Promiscuity is not only due to conformity to occult norms,
as I wrote Friday.
Alexandra Fox says women will do anything for acceptance and love,
even if it kills them.
Social engineers knew women are much more psychologically penetrable and easily led. (This is not sexism, it's neuroscience - they are easier to sell to, to hypnotize, and even to train as MK Ultra slaves, as certain facts of female neurology make them more suggestible and less resistant.)
by Alexandra Fox
henrymakow.com
Young women don't behave promiscuously because they enjoy it, or because they want cash or career benefit - but simply because they want what women have always wanted - acceptance.
And the deafening social message is that they will only get this acceptance through being promiscuous.
If a woman can get a drunken stranger to fall into bed with her, she must be pretty "hot", right?
After all, drunk young men wouldn't sleep with just anyone, would they?!
Women at once believe sex means nothing - you can do it with anyone, any time, anywhere - but also that it means everything. It's not about being pretty or beautiful any more. These terms seem quaint. It's specifically "hotness" - sex appeal - that women use to measure and market themselves.
This is why we now have 13-year-old girls dispensing sexual favors to boys at parties, and educated young women taking up careers in lap-dancing.
Female identity has been so warped and shattered by cultural Marxism that women conceive of themselves as sexual utilities - available to anyone who wants to use them.
There are no preconditions for this - no emotional connection, respect, or love required. They don't even have to enjoy it. As your article says, the only important thing is that they can "claim the act". They can wear it like some kind of twisted "badge of dishonour".
SATANISM CELEBRATES SICKNESS
HBO's "Girls"confirms that young women are taught to celebrate being promiscuous disease-ridden emotional wrecks with neither marital nor career prospects. A memorable line was that catching an STD was the "ultimate mark of an adventurous woman".
This is how the programming works - women are made to do things which are blatantly self-destructive, which literally make them ill, and then told it makes them "cool" - e.g. accepted.
Similarly, the contraceptive pill is considered at once a modern, liberated "woman's right", but also a class one carcinogen. In addition, many studies link abortion with breast cancer, and show how abortions are far more of a threat to female mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.
Despite all this - and despite the fact that all these things are destructive -- women keep doing them; because even more than health, happiness or sanity, women want to be accepted.
Social engineers know this, which is precisely why they created feminism and not meninism. In theory, social engineers wishing to break up the family could just as easily have used feminist rhetoric to appeal to men:
"Men! Don't sacrifice the best years of your life as a slave to your wife and children! Don't work yourself to the bone for the sake of those parasites! You have a right to enjoy your youth and freedom! You have been enslaved by the matriarchy!!!"
But they didn't, because they knew it wouldn't work. It would work on women, because women are much more psychologically penetrable and easily led. (This is not sexism, it's neuroscience - they are easier to sell to, to hypnotize, and even to train as MK Ultra slaves, as certain facts of female neurology make them more suggestible and less resistant.) Also, women are now so loaded with toxic insecurity about their "hotness" that they need to keep getting "hits" of sex to reassure themselves that men still find them attractive, e.g. that they're worth something. They pretend to have "high sex drives", but scratch below the surface and they will quite happily admit "I like to have a lot of sex because it makes me feel desirable and wanted". They don't particularly like sex. They just like - need - the idea that someone wants them.
So now, we are where we are. Generations of girls with shattered self-esteem who can't conceive of themselves other than as syndicated receptacles for strangers' drunken lusts. We can only live in hope that girls will start to see how badly this has destroyed older generations, start to question feminist "wisdom", and reclaim their lives, health and dignity back.
---
Related - Therapist Says Career-Driven Young Women Shouldn't Feel Guilty About Wanting Love
Also by Alexandra Fox
Workplace Doesn't Work for Women
First Comment from Marcos :
There is a HUGE fact missing in the last series of articles on women. Hypergamy, the tendency in women to seek rich, famous and dominant men.
It is true that women are shooting themselves in the foot and destroying their futures and emotional lives by being promiscuous.
However, they are not promiscuous with anyone. They methodically, consistently look for a minority of dominant, alpha males and ignore and mistreat the rest, especially the "nice" guys.
It is hard to feel sorry for women who spend the ages between 16 to 30 behaving like princesses who can only be approached and copulate with the king of the hill (dozens of them), and then expect the nice guy whom they despised for more than a decade to marry her and make her happy. And, if he doesn't, she will divorce him and take away all his money and the kids.
The worst losers in the sexual revolution have been the nice guys.
-
Alexandra Replies:
Maybe 15-20 years ago, this is how young women behaved, as was chronicled in Sex and the City et al; a depiction based on significant numbers of women being in high-powered jobs socializing with high-status men.
However, the climate has changed radically. I have grown up alongside the cohort of women Marcos describes, and I can absolutely attest they do not go for these rich, powerful "alphas", because they rarely have access to such men. Take a look at "Girls" - the 'friend with benefits' of the main character is socially awkward, not successful or especially attractive - a "loser", basically. I've also lived in house-shares with average young single men - average looking, average jobs - who all spent their twenties bed-hopping with young women with low self-esteem. They definitely weren't "alpha"; they didn't need to be.
This is the crucial point. This is how far women have fallen. Maybe in the power-padded eighties they were all off sleeping with rich, powerful super-studs, but that just isn't the case any more.
The whole point of my article is that women have no strategy, no goal, no benefit from sleeping around. Of course in theory they'd like the proverbial Mr. Big, just as men in theory would like Ms. Supermodel. But in practice, women go for the people they actually meet - who are the normal, average men in the normal, average bars and so on they frequent. Mr. Super-rich Alpha lives in a gilded world of moneyed privilege which a 20-something girl on an unpaid internship is simply never likely to encounter.
Plus, you have to ask yourself why Mr. Alpha would want anything to do with Ms. Average. These guys are status-obsessed and want the cosmetically-enhanced model-type hanging off their arm. If they can get no-strings sex from such girls by flaunting their wealth/status (which they can), why on earth would they waste their time with average women? How often do we see a rich banker or famous star with an average woman? Women, like men, have to go for who they can get - which, for most average women, is an average man.
Workplace Doesn't Work for Women
First Comment from Marcos :
There is a HUGE fact missing in the last series of articles on women. Hypergamy, the tendency in women to seek rich, famous and dominant men.
It is true that women are shooting themselves in the foot and destroying their futures and emotional lives by being promiscuous.
However, they are not promiscuous with anyone. They methodically, consistently look for a minority of dominant, alpha males and ignore and mistreat the rest, especially the "nice" guys.
It is hard to feel sorry for women who spend the ages between 16 to 30 behaving like princesses who can only be approached and copulate with the king of the hill (dozens of them), and then expect the nice guy whom they despised for more than a decade to marry her and make her happy. And, if he doesn't, she will divorce him and take away all his money and the kids.
The worst losers in the sexual revolution have been the nice guys.
-
Alexandra Replies:
Maybe 15-20 years ago, this is how young women behaved, as was chronicled in Sex and the City et al; a depiction based on significant numbers of women being in high-powered jobs socializing with high-status men.
However, the climate has changed radically. I have grown up alongside the cohort of women Marcos describes, and I can absolutely attest they do not go for these rich, powerful "alphas", because they rarely have access to such men. Take a look at "Girls" - the 'friend with benefits' of the main character is socially awkward, not successful or especially attractive - a "loser", basically. I've also lived in house-shares with average young single men - average looking, average jobs - who all spent their twenties bed-hopping with young women with low self-esteem. They definitely weren't "alpha"; they didn't need to be.
This is the crucial point. This is how far women have fallen. Maybe in the power-padded eighties they were all off sleeping with rich, powerful super-studs, but that just isn't the case any more.
The whole point of my article is that women have no strategy, no goal, no benefit from sleeping around. Of course in theory they'd like the proverbial Mr. Big, just as men in theory would like Ms. Supermodel. But in practice, women go for the people they actually meet - who are the normal, average men in the normal, average bars and so on they frequent. Mr. Super-rich Alpha lives in a gilded world of moneyed privilege which a 20-something girl on an unpaid internship is simply never likely to encounter.
Plus, you have to ask yourself why Mr. Alpha would want anything to do with Ms. Average. These guys are status-obsessed and want the cosmetically-enhanced model-type hanging off their arm. If they can get no-strings sex from such girls by flaunting their wealth/status (which they can), why on earth would they waste their time with average women? How often do we see a rich banker or famous star with an average woman? Women, like men, have to go for who they can get - which, for most average women, is an average man.
Debra said (March 10, 2013):
The first comment by Marcos is TOTALLY correct. Alexandra should not have been so quick to disagree with him, though she is not off the
mark, either. The point missed in the article is that men have been more victimized by female promiscuity. Sex was never as available as
it is now. Females are (spiritually) closer to Satan; with that being the case, can be and are "used" easily. There is NOTHING special about
women or their body parts. Men are out-of their-minds to think they should give their time and energy (physical, mental and spiritual) to
plotting, slutty females. Both sexes have low esteem as a result, and the protectors (all men) were their primary targets.