While we all know that the great majority of women are impossible and all but seven young women in the western world are worthless, selfish cretins, a little more work was needed for this extremely sad toot to work.
1. Chicken a la King need not be bland, but more importantly how would the little bitch (hereafter "LB") know it was bland if she refused to eat it?
1a. Chicken a la King is a dish made from leftover (precooked) chicken. Where did the extra chicken come from? It's also a tired old recipe that no old queens I know would go near except in a camp, retro manner. The OP does not approach the lunch with humor, so the gay man is presented from the start as a fool. (I do serve the dish on occasion after having poached a few extra breasts while fixing something else with the rest of the chicken, but only as a joke. Even my old aunts would think the dish was silly if I tried it with them.) Also, a better tale would have included whether the dish was served in the old manner over homemade biscuits (using the American term.
2. A proper extremely shocking tale ensures that the teller seems innocent, reasonable and simply nonplussed through the initial outrages, so that the eventual explosion and/or emotional shock works better. A sympathetic uncle would have provided better contrast. As it is, the OP does seem misogynistic, with "like a lady," "strumpet," and all that tampon talk reflecting poorly on the uncle.
3. If, in fact, the plan was to make the uncle unsympathetic, it is difficult to see where the interest in the tale would lie. A moral of "everyone is shit" (or, more kindly, "we're all human") merely yields entropically sludgelike tattle. The uncle just seems awful, and that pushes things into homophobic territory, very unwise on the DL when the set-up is male versus female.
4. Leaving out the age of the lb at the start was a serious error. We couldn't envision the LB we were supposed to loathe. By mixing "niece" and "grand-niece" and stating it is the daughter of a sister, the OP seems to be senile or not understand simple familial relationships.
5. The "unsupervised" bit was poorly staged. If the "sister" wouldn't speak to the uncle, how does he know he is non persona grata?
6. Suggesting that the OP was not trying for believability returns us to the question of motive. While we are well past invoking the intentional fallacy, the social commentary aspect implicitly at the heart of such parody or satire leaves us wondering why anyone would bother with the inchoateness of this mess.
7. Lastly, the equation of tampon use with being a whore is too low. Calling her a creepy, useless, doomed little cunt would be one thing. Suggesting a relationship between menstrual precautions and love of cock suggests not only a homophobe writing, but perhaps a teenager with a thesaurus or, worst of all, an actual cunt trolling against gay men.
Grade - 0.
I'm sorry, but this student is dismissed from the EST 101 course and is sent back to Remedial Trollery with a warning. She/he/it simply cannot meet the minimum standards of the midlevel program, and capacity for the entry-level section is now questionable.
(Sheila, I trust you will correct any inadvertent typos here before forwarding it. I could only spend a moment with it as I am expecting the bursar and the dean for tea shortly. And do please affix a brown star beside the grade. Thank you.)