Tag Archives: Sex

Digging Deeper on Power

We come to a third edition of the topic of women and power. Both Donal and Chad have responded with criticisms, so I’ll respond.

Donal’s response is, as he admits, somewhat unordered and incoherent, but essentially he denies that men act as a class and states that modern weaponry has lowered the power differentials between men and women.

Chad’s response is wrapped in parable. I’ve never been too good with allegory and as of my writing this I don’t think he’s done yet, but from my understanding he’s likening men to land and women to water. The land shapes the environment and guides and controls the water, but the water flows where it flows within the framework the land has shaped and has the power to either destroy the land or make it bountiful.

From these, I don’t think we disagree as much as my critics think we do.

****

First, on the nature of power:

The female, and indirect method, is to make the world desire to change and help it do so.

I think many of my critics are missing or misunderstanding a critical piece:

any power [women] may display is simply proxy power given them by men.

They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

So maybe I should restate a little: women as a class do not have any inherent public/political power.

Women do have political/public power but only that given them or supported by men. Indirect power, the power the make the world desire to change and to help change is only effective when men give them men’s power to effect that change.

****

Second, we will go more into the nature of the public and private realms:

Oh, and another thing: the personal is the political, at least in the sense that political power is heavily influence by personal and private spheres of power. As anyone who has worked in the political field knows, politics is largely about managing personal connections and networks of like-minded people.

Donal seems to be misunderstanding what I meant, which is understandable as I didn’t explicitly state or link to some background assumptions:

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence,

The Way of Men has more on this, but men exist in a world of function-based, hierarchical organizations, ie. public organizations, while women exist in a world of one-on-one personal relationships. The former does not eliminate personal connections or friendships, but rather changes the nature of them: the personal relationships and networks exist in a framework where function, shared virtue, and ability towards a shared goal are the measures of judgment rather than emotional closeness, non-judgmentalism, and acceptance.

To explain what I mean, think of the playground. Boys generally self-organize into large group activities, such as soccer, where most other boys are allowed to join as they will (except maybe the occasional incompetent or nerd). Girls generally break up into pairs. This doesn’t mean the boys playing soccer don’t have personal relationships, but that the relationships exist in a public, hierarchical, function-based environment, the soccer team, and are superseded by a higher value, winning the game. Politics is playground soccer on a grand scale. The management of personal relationships and networks in such a public system is different than that in a private system, such as the family.

****

Finally, on women and men as a class.

Speaking of unified displays of male strength, I think that it should be noted that men rarely act together as a “class.” It isn’t how we are wired. There isn’t really a Team Man counterpart to Team Woman. So any argument founded on a notion that men can overcome women “as a class” fails as a foundational matter.

This misses the entire point of my argument. There is no ‘overcoming women’. There is no war between men and women, to think there is a class war based on sex is to fully adopt the neo-marxist foundations of feminism. To think there is a power conflict between men and women is to lose the ideological war entirely before it even begins. If we accept a sexual class struggle exists, we might as well give up now and enjoy the decline because we’ve already accepted the enemy’s frame and joined him.

****

Here we get to the main point I’m trying to make:

Men and women are not enemies and are not in competition, they are naturally made to complement each other. Women are naturally creatures of the private sphere, men are naturally creatures of the public sphere and the social arrangement of men and women, often referred to as patriarchy, of each tending to own their sphere works fantastically well for both men and women. Women have no inherent public political power because their inherent power rests in the private sphere, the sphere in which they are comfortable.

We do not have a competition between male power and female power, because the nature of their power is different. Rather we have a competition between one group of civilization-hating men and other groups of men, particularly white conservative males, in which women are but one group being used as weapons. Women are involved because the former group, using their control of cultural institutions, have managed to take the concerns of a small group of hurting, betrayed, broken, self-destructive, and/or high-testosterone women and elevate them to a class struggle in which most of the class does not share the small groups concerns and does not want to fight and most of those that do want to are primarily doing so because they have been lied to and the struggle is just the accepted environment in which they live.

The war is against that group of civilization-hating men. Feminists are the symptom of entropy not the disease. If we want to start winning we have to avoid mistaking the leaves for the roots.

Private and Public Spheres

Some have disagreed with my previous post, both in the comments and on their blogs. The jist of common objections are:

Women have the power of supplying willing, enthusiastic sex.

Only a Godly woman, submitted to a man with Godly masculinity, will be able to resist. His masculinity will appeal to her flesh, he will be put in authority by God, and hr will derive his direct power from God in the same way she will derive her indirect power from the same source. She will magnify everything in that household to be more as her husband and more as God, and the same in the community.

It overlooks the realm of indirect/private/influence power.

Now these are not wrong, a woman does have power in her private sphere: she has power to influence her husband, power to inculcate values in her children, and power to otherwise influence her local community and personal relationships.* I even briefly mentioned this in my original post: “Women do have a specific power: women are wonderful.” But this power is irrelevant to the discussion as women’s power lies in the realm of individual private relationships.

On the other hand, men’s power lies in the realm of hierarchical public organizations, although, they can bring their power to bear in the private sphere as well.

That is why I specified that women as a class are powerless. A class can only exist in the public realm and women’s power does not transfer into the public realm unless men allow it to and support it. (This does not mean that women’s power if meaningless or non-existent, only that it does not exist in the public realm).

In the private realm, emotions and personal relationships rule. Where harmonious relationships are paramount power can come in many forms as emotional and spiritual violence, the kinds of violence women excel at, are just as effective against individuals as physical violence and the use of physical violence is often destructive to harmonious personal relationships.

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence, however well-hidden the violence may be. Spiritual and emotional violence are useless as as they can only truly work against isolated individuals or family units, not tribes or thedes. In the public realm, even when public power may come from authority, legitimacy, expertise, tradition, at heart it still flows from physical violence or the implication thereof. Democracy is bloodless war, public policy is coercive confiscation, redistribution, and regulation, authority derives from implied violence, and legitimacy derives from being a part of a hierarchy backed by violence. In our modern society, violence is mostly implied and hidden behind many layers of bureaucracy, but the system still rests on it.**

And women, as a class, are not capable of violence. They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

In the public realm there is know balance of power between the patriarchy and the matriarchy, there is only a power balance between civilized men and uncivilized men, and the women belonging to either group.

****

Why do you think feminists try to make the personal political?

If feminists could succeed at extending the personal realm into the public realm, to have it annex the public realm, women would be able to exert far more power over the public realm through their power in the private realm.

Of course, the personal can not be made political, you can not have individual private relationships with more than about 150 people, let alone millions. It is impossible for the private realm to conquer the public realm, but the public realm can conquer the private realm, so when trying to mix the two the public realm always comes out on top. This is why feminism always ends in bureaucracy. This is why leftism, however pro-anarchy it may be, always ends in bureaucracy.

****

This separation of public and private power makes a case for extreme subsidiarity. If most political decision making is devolved to the Dunbar level, the private realm could conquer the public realm, and we could have a political structure that does not fundamentally rest on violence. This is called tribalism.

****

As for sex explicitly, there is nothing women could do if men decided to take it forcefully. Thankfully, due to the Christian civilization feminists are intent on destroying, most men have been inculcated with values that are in opposition to rape. While women’s love might be a strong private force, I’m fairly sure that if civilized Christian values stopped being indoctrinated into children from a young age, most men would not be as adverse to rape as a few of the commenters think they are.

****

As for female serial killers: as I said, “There is a .01% of women capable of physically matching the average man. This is not significant.” Some women are outside the norm, that doesn’t mean anything to women as a class.

****

* I should mention that even here, those powers exist only because the stronger men in her life allow them to women. Men could easily take them away, making those powers dependent on men.

** This is not necessarily a moral judgment; morally legitimate violence is necessary for any polity. Also, for those wanting to get metaphysical on my use of morality here, God is good because God is powerful.

Sex Ed Hypocrisy

I found this both amusing and angering:

EDMONTON – An Edmonton teenager and her mother have successfully filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, alleging the Edmonton Public School District’s use of a Christian fundamentalist abstinence education program infringed upon their rights as non-Christians.

Dawson’s mother Kathy, an agnostic who supports sex education, signed the permission slip for Emily to attend CALM’s sexual education classes. She was shocked when Emily texted her to say the “sex ed” class was being taught by an anti-abortion activist, from the American-based Pregnancy Care Centre.

The leftist theocrats spent decades ramming “sexual education” into the public education system against the vocal opposition of Christians, the right, and anybody with any sanity because indoctrinating elementary-school children in the joys of sodomy and pedophilia is essential for the leftist goal of destroying the family.

One pro-life Christian group manages to infiltrate their sexual indoctrination sessions and make it vaguely pro-family and suddenly it becomes a human rights issue that must be dealt with in court.

It’s funny how suddenly teaching children about sex is wrong when it comes from a point of view of Christian morality rather than nihilistic hedonism.

Remember, its all about forcing their views and destroying traditional values, nothing more.

To add even more joy, this is how the article ends:

It’s absurd. CALM isn’t religion class. That’s not what parents sign up for. Sex education in our local public schools should be delivered in a scientific, non-judgmental way, by qualified professionals, not outsourced to an American-based pro-life lobby group.

Emily and Kathy Dawson have inspired an important public debate about the nature of our public schools. They deserve our thanks for their courage in speaking out.

This left-wing moralizing BS is a part of the news story. It’s not an editorial, it’s in the national news section. The priests of progressivism aren’t even trying to hide that the news is simply propaganda any more.

The gloves are coming off, they’re coming into the open, and they won’t stop until they’ve devoured your children’s souls and destroyed whatever is left of the family.

Christian Sickness

I’ve discussed the issue of purity and abstinence recently, but I’m doing it again as I’ve just come across this piece that perfectly illustrates modern evangelical sickness, read it. I’m beginning to think ‘purity’ is one of, if not the most, destructive teaching in the modern church.

In this article, a 30-something women discusses how great purity is and how hard her struggles with sexual desire are.

As a single girl in my thirties who was committed, by God’s grace, to saving sex for marriage,

Notice, ‘committed to saving sex for marriage.’ This is entirely the wrong commitment. The commitment should be to marriage.

Paul was very clear on this: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

For those women (and men) burning with passion, counseling abstinence is simply wrong; in fact, it might be borderline sinful. Instead, the church should council marriage.

“Purity culture” is destroying the church.

Or maybe the greater question is, Why do we even want to fight for sexual purity when our desires seem so natural and good—and often feel too powerful to control?

She shouldn’t. These desires feel good, natural, and powerful because they are good, natural, and powerful because God made them that way.

The problem is not the desire, the problem is looking for it in the wrong spot. People should not be waiting until their late-20s, or 30′s to get married and suffer under some perverse form of purity. They should be getting married young and having good, natural, enjoyable sex with their spouses while young.

God created sex, then told us to enjoy it only within the context of marriage between a man and a woman; so if He has us wait an excruciatingly long time for it, He is (mercifully) teaching us to meet our very deepest desires in Him alone.

Waiting is the problem, a Christian should not be waiting. They should be actively preparing and looking for marriage, men and women alike, each in their own way.

She gives some advice on combating lust, of which this is the most interesting:

9. Set hard-and-fast boundaries with men—for your sake and theirs. Hanging out alone with a man never helped me; it usually stirred up desires unnecessarily.

If a man and a woman are hanging out and want each other so much they are considering sin, they should be getting to the altar post-haste. ‘Boundaries’ are a broken product of a broken church culture. If a Christian man and woman are worrying about violating their ‘boundaries’ they should be be getting married.

****

To Colleen,

You seem like a decent woman, but you have been mislead by a sick church culture, so please don’t take offense to my criticisms, instead help me to fix church culture. Council your other women readers avoid sticking to some misguided quest for a perverse form of ‘purity’, instead council them to commit to marriage, to try their hardest to find a decent Christian man and start a life.

Stop waiting and ‘being pure’, and embrace the holy desires God has given you. Find a decent Christian man, marry him, and have as much sex as you possibly can; council your readers to do the same.

The false teachings you have received on this issue have obviously hurt you according to your own words, so please help prevent other young women from falling into the same trap.

Repost: Patriarchy: Restraining Males

In light of the Isla Vista massacre, I bring an old post of mine to your attention:

I came across this today, a discussion about patriarchy by a feminist (named Clarissa). She’s discussing a post from another feminist (named Soraya) at Alternet.

Soraya believes that nasty, old, religious men hate and fear young women for some unspecified reason and instill patriarchy because of this fear.

She’s wrong in that the patriarchy is designed to oppress women; any control occurring over women in patriarchy is only incidental to patriarchy’s primary purpose of controlling men.

Clarissa notes the obvious, that the non-religious and women are just as interested in maintaining  patriarchy as the religious. She notes that the patriarchy “oppresses people who can’t or won’t conform to traditional gender roles.”

She’s more right. In a later post she clarifies what she means by patriarchy.

The patriarchy is a system of social relations where… people accept and enforce strict gender roles in order to perpetuate the system where men castrate themselves emotionally and psychologically in order to be able to purchase women and women castrate themselves sexually and professionally in order to be able to sell themselves.

She believes this to be a bad thing.

She’s right, in that patriarchy is designed to psychologically and emotionally castrate men, she’s wrong in that this is necessarily a bad thing.

****

Let’s start at the beginning.

The male human is the single most ruthless, deadly, and dangerous predator ever brought forth by nature. A single male human is capable of wreaking terrifying damage. A group of male humans can execute almost unfathomable levels of destruction.

In addition to being capable of mass destruction, the male human is naturally inclined towards violence.

The male human is the apex predator.

****

In addition to being a predator, the human male is also a creator, capable of building wonders beyond imagination.

The human male is also capable of extreme laziness and hedonism.

The average male, is  generally neutral in his inclination to his choice between hedonism, destruction, and creation.

Hedonism is easiest and is enjoyable, but scarcity makes it impossible but for those living in abundance and safety. Hedonism also does nothing to benefits society; rather it simply consumes resources.

Creation requires the most effort and is the least enjoyable (at least in the short-term), but it creates value for society and meaning for the male human.

Destruction is enjoyable and is easier than creation, but it does not create value, it either value and/or takes value from someone else.

Society requires males humans to engage in creation to advance, but out of the three creation requires the most effort out of the male and is (often) the least enjoyable.

****

So, how does society encourage a male human to create?

There are really only three ways: force, access to resources, and sex/family.

Force is problematic. It requires other male humans to threaten this, so you have to encourage them to do so (so it doesn’t really solve the problem, only transfers it). It is also only moderately effective: a human male will usually counter with his own force when threatened and will often die before submitting, especially if the male has nothing to lose. Even if force works, an enslaved man will generally only work the bare minimum necessary to keep the threat at bay. The incentive structure for slaves is not set to maximize their creative potential.

Access to resources works, but only to a point and can be unreliable. Human males don’t require much to be happy: food, shelter, some entertainment (ie. destruction), and sex. He will create to get these basics, but attempting to bribe more creation out of him will likely be fruitless, he will often prefer his leisure to more resources. Also, if resources are withheld, he may simply respond with destruction to gain the resources.

The third option is sex/family. A male human will willingly create and undergo hardships he wouldn’t otherwise for the benefit of his mate and his children, and their futures. He will try to create (or destroy) to attain more resources than he would normally need or want simply to give to his family.

The third option is the only stable and reliable option where the majority of males will willingly create rather than engage in leisure or destruction. It is also the only option for society where the male doesn’t have a decent chance of responding with destruction.

****

The problem with the third option is a male human can not know if a child is his or not. The human female knows exactly which children are hers and can invest in them secure in that knowledge, the male does not and can not.

The male will rarely create for the sake of children not his own and will often attempt to destroy those children not his own.

For the male to create, he needs reassurance that his children are his own.

Also, if sex is freely available to a male, there is no need for him to create to access sex.

****

Hence, patriarchy.

Under patriarchy sexual access is highly controlled by social mores and/or force.

Because sex occurs only in marriage, the married male human knows that the children of his wife are his and his alone. He will then be induced to create as much as he can to provide for them and ensure their future.

Because sex is restricted solely to marriage, the male can not go outside marriage for sexual access, so he needs to create to win and provide for a wife.

These restrictions on males force the male into creation to gain sexual access.

The patriarchy castrates his destructive impulses. His desire to rape, his desire to murder, his desire to burn, his desire to loot, his desire to laze about in leisure, they are all controlled, because if the male engages in this behaviour he loses his ability to engage in sex and reproduce. He loses his future.

Monogamous patriarchy goes further: by restricting sexual access for each male to a single female and ensuring that all but the greatest losers have sexual access, it decreases the likelihood of violent competition for sexual access by lowering the stakes and ensures that each male will have a family and children, ensuring he is invested in the future.

The patriarchy is essential to controlling male humans’ destructive impulses.

****

Isn’t castrating a male’s natural impulses under patriarchy wrong?

No, it is a necessary element of civilization. Marriage is the basis of civilization.

Civilization can not come into being without it.

Without this castration, society will either be chaos (as male humans fight for sexual access) or very primitive (think lost tribe in the jungle).

Everybody suffers.

****

Any controlling of female humans in a patriarchal society is incidental. The controlling of women’s sexuality, by having social mores limiting her from having sex outside marriage, is a necessity for controlling males, but it is not the purpose of patriarchy. It is a by-product of controlling the males.

People who condemn the patriarchy are missing the bigger picture.

They live in a culture where the patriarchal castration of humans males is the norm and has been for millenia. They do not think outside it, so they see only the bad (the control) not the good.

They see only the castrated males, those males who have been inculcated for generations to create, not to destroy.

They assume all males are naturally like this. They do not realize that the mass castration of males through patriarchal mores has throughout history been what has suppressed their natural predatory instincts.

They react in horror when males engage in the violence that is natural to them. They seem to believe that this is somehow abnormal.

They do not realize that rape, murder, burning, looting, war, and violence are the norm.

****

The breakdown of the patriarchy can have will lead the male to either hedonism or destruction:

1) Male disengagement: As males’ desire for sex can be accessed outside of patriarchal marriage, they will contribute less to society. They will let laziness take over.

As our current patriarchy is breaking down, we can see this occurring in our society in two inter-related movements: the child-man and MGTOW. The child-man and MGTOW realizes that sex can be gotten outside the patriarchy (or forgoes sex altogether) and has no family to create for, so he creates only enough to sustain himself. He no longer creates what society needs to advance. If these movements become big enough, they could significantly impact the society’s production and continued health.

2) Violence: As males’ become less engaged they may engage in violence either in rage, to obtain resources, or for entertainment.

This is unlikely to occur on mass scale anytime soon, although it might. The destruction of the patriarchy in the black community has resulted in high criminal rates. The rest of society could follow.

The prevalence of porn and video games will leave most males too sated in relation to both sex and destruction, for a number of males to have enough inclination to engage in socially and legally proscribed violence, which should prevent a mass movement towards male violence.

Incidences of violence from individual males can be expected. Notice how among the examples of violence I posted, the perpetrators were single. Anytime you see a mass murder, a terrorist act, etc., check the relationship status of the male perpetrator; he will almost always be single. Patriarchal marriage reduces a male’s inclinations to violence.

****

Neither outcome is good for females.

Male disengagement means less resources for women, less resources for their children, less resources and progress for society as a whole, and a lack of fatherly involvement in their children with the attendant social problems.

Being less inclined to violence and less physically capable women are at the mercy of males should males decide to engage in violence.

****

The patriarchy exists to control males; control of females is incidental.

The patriarchy is good for both females and males and for society as a whole.

Sexual Principles

Here’s part of a letter to an advice columnist from a mother concerning her daughter:

Boy, did I get an eyeful! It appears my 16-year-old daughter and her 17-year-old boyfriend have been contemplating sex and have already gone to the heavy petting/foreplay stage. There must have been more than 1,000 e-mails of detailed touching and adult sexual language.

Both kids have had “the talk” with their parents, and we all thought abstinence was not an issue. I have had numerous talks with my daughter about sex, relationships and consequences.

Both kids want to go to college and have goals in life. They do feel they are “soul mates” — but what teenage couple don’t think that? The boyfriend is the nicest, most respectful boy you would want your daughter to date. Teenage hormones got the best of both of them. If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.

To make a long story short, I told them I read every single e-mail. When my daughter saw tears come to my eyes, she knew they had crossed the line, as I am a very open and understanding parent. They have been warned, talked to about consequences again, and strict rules have been put in place such as no “alone time” together.

Am I silly to think I can keep them in check, and should I keep their secret?

Here’s part of Amy’s, the advice columnist, response:

If you seriously believe this couple will abstain from sex because you say so, then you might want to get started decorating the baby’s nursery.

Keeping these two apart is completely unrealistic. In addition to your wise counsel about consequences, they should also be told that if they have sex, they must use contraception. You should urge your daughter to explore her options with her doctor, and/or the couple should visit a Planned Parenthood clinic together for realistic counseling and birth control

This letter here is the perfect macrocosm of what is screwed up in our sexual/marital marketplace.

It’s likely that the daughter, boyfriend, and their parents are probably all religious given their emphasis on abstinence, but their first principles are borderline satanic.

First, we’ll get “soul mates” out of the way. There are no soul mates, there is no ‘the one’, there is only “my one and only“. The concept of soul mates is a destroyer of marriage. Given the scare quotes its likely the mother has some reservations about reality of soul mates, but hasn’t imparted this wisdom properly to her daughter.

Next, Amy is correct in her first assertion, encouraging these teenagers to abstain from sex is stupid, but her advice beyond this is non-Christian and will lead to heartache for all. Her advice is the typical hedonism that infects society as a whole and is leading to our decline.

Now, all of this was just a preface, to examine the real point. Burdened, the letter writer, who’s one line shows how deep the rot has gone.

If any of the other parents find out, their relationship is over.”

There are two biological adults strongly attracted to each other. They have been blessed with strong mutual attraction at a young age, and their families’ response would be to destroy their relationship because of some desire for them to be “abstinent”?

That’s insanity. That’s cruel. That’s borderline satanic.

Here is Paul on the issue:

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 ESV)

The proper response, the Christian response, is to get these two young adults married and starting a family.

The modern drive for ‘abstinence’ uber alles is unholy. Some precious few are given the gift of singleness, they should abstain, but most are not given this gift and calling.

God blessed most with a sexual drive and a holy desire to become one flesh with another. To demand abstinence until some point in their 20′s or 30′s from those not given to singleness is cruel, destructive, unrealistic, unbiblical, and satanic. The focus on abstinence hands the devil a strong hold over young adults in which to subvert their holy desires into unholy ones.

One of the major problems with the modern church is the unbiblical emphasis on abstinence. Abstinence should never be an issue in the church. If two Christian young adults want sex with each other, their parents should rejoice and bring them before the altar post-haste.

Is it any wonder the unchurched are repulsed by such a hideous doctrine as abstinence?

I actually wrote into Amy, hopefully she’ll publish my letter. I would not wish to see these parent’s inflict this hideous cruelty on their offspring.

****

You might, in your modernity-addled mind, object that 16-17 year-olds aren’t adults, but you’d be wrong in any sense but the technially legal. These are adults, and would have been considered so by almost any society prior to the mid-19th century. A person that has hit puberty is an adult; our infantilization of them through non-existent ‘adolescence’ is destructive. Don’t let this kind of modern insanity poison your mind.

Inner Beauty

A while back I mentioned inner beauty, saying I accept the concept itself but reject the abuses it has taken. I decided to write a bit more on this topic after reading this post on why men marry some women. (If you’re a young woman looking to marry, I would strongly suggest reading that link).

The concept of “inner beauty” typically gets short shrift in these parts, and deservedly so. Inner beauty is usually used as an appeal by either unpleasant fat people or unpleasant aging women for why people should love them despite their unpleasantness, obesity, and age. Sadly, Jim Carrey was right about how inner beauty is often used:

Despite the abuses of inner beauty, inner beauty is actually very important. As the earlier linked article pointed out:

1. Men are attracted by the physical, but marry character

a. Newly engaged men said that what attracted them to their fiancées was how classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat their future wives were.
i. While 68% gave a physical description of their fiancée, only 20% said that what attracted them was how gorgeous and sexy their fiancée was. Over 60% described their personalities, even if the women in question were very beautiful.
b. Therefore, be positive!

2. All wives are trophy wives—men marry women whom they admire and like to show off (but not for their physical appearance)

3. Dressing appropriately sends the message, “I am wife material.” Men marry women they perceive as “situational virgins” who move easily in their world.

a. Editor’s note: In other words, don’t dress like a ho. Men see a sexy outfit as an invitation to have sex.
b. Most men decide within 10 minutes of meeting a woman if she’s appropriate for marriage, or just for a casual affair.
c. Over 80% of men said or bragged that their fiancée was the kind of woman they were proud to introduce to friends and family
d. Over 70% of men said that they knew that their future bride was a “nice girl” the minute they met
e. Only 7 out of 2,000 men interviewed said that their fiancée was dressed in a very sexy outfit when they met.

For finding a husband, women’s looks are secondary, their inner qualities are what matter more. (For finding hook-ups, the opposite is true). This doesn’t mean women should ignore her looks, secondary is still important, but instead a woman looking for marriage should focus on developing the internal qualities a man would want in a wife.

****

Look at the list above of attractive features from 1above: “classy, positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat”

All but ‘classy’ can be described as simply as ‘actively happy’.

Classy is simply a polite way of saying “not an embarrassing slut”. If you look at points 2 & 3 this simply reinforces that point. Men don’t want someone slutty for marriage, they want a nice girl.

If a woman simply develops herself into a happy, energetic person and refrains from making a slut of herself, she will be attractive.

This is true inner beauty and it shows outwardly.

****

Your outer self reflects your inner self.

Your internal attitude will reflect how others perceive you.

The manosphere talks of frame and irrational self-confidence a lot, because they know that how they think about themselves, their inner personality, comes through in the way they look, in the way they stand, and in the way they talk. Having a strong, confident frame attracts women. The men of the manosphere knows that a person’s inner self reflects their outer self.

This is a man’s inner attractiveness.

But this internal frame doesn’t just apply to men, it also applies to women. A woman’s internal attitude will greatly effect her external appearance.

A women’s positive attitude is extremely important. A genuine smile and positive outlook on life can easily and greatly increase a women’s attractiveness.

Here is something most men know, but many women seem not to understand. The vast majority of women under the age of 25 who keep themselves healthy, have a positive attitude, and smile a lot are attractive to most men.

To be unattractive usually requires effort on a women’s part.

****

To be unattractive most young women have to actively make themselves unattractive by either having a bad attitude, gaining weight, mutilating themselves through piercings or tattoos, or actively hampering their looks through too much make-up or a bad (ie: short) haircut.

Obesity is the most common reasons for young women being unattractive, but, even that is simply an outward expression of an inward attitude. I’ve written more about this before, but to summarize, obesity a symptom of two of the seven cardinal sins. An unwillingness to take the most basic care of your body shows outwardly a deep inward self-loathing.

Tattoos and piercings show internal attitudes as well. Tattoos demonstrate poor decision-making, trashy attitudes, and sexual easiness. Piercings demonstrate much the same. While these might attract men looking for easy sex, they are counterproductive in sending the message “I am wife material”.

A bad haircut (ie: short hair) displays a lack of femininity and a lack of desire to be feminine. This displays an unattractive internal reality.

Poor make-up is less permanent and less destructive, but caking it on like a whore, makes you look like a whore, which is the opposite of classy wife material. This may be showing an internal problem or it may simply just be showing cluelessness.

While these external markers may all show inner ugliness, inner ugliness will show through more directly as well. Inner ugliness will display itself in frowning, bad attitudes, argumentativeness, nagging, and the like, all of which is horribly physically unattractive.

If a woman simply keeps in shape, is happy, and doesn’t ruin herself, she will be able to attract a man.

****

There are a few exceptions to the rule, some people are are just born physically ugly and no amount of inner beauty or self-care will change that, but that is rare.

Look at this 1-10 pictoral scale, how many women (excluding the obese) like those in the 1-4 categories does a man actually see in real life?

For myself, I can only think of one example of a girl (from church) under 30 from my entirety of my regular social circles (school, friends, social activities, etc.) who would fall among the 1-4 range for a reason other than obesity. It is very rare in the course of my regular life in public areas (bussing, shopping, at church, walking around, etc) that I will see a <30 woman who would physically be a 1-4 for reasons other than obesity (or, occassionally, a hideous make-up job, bad haircut, or piercings/tattoos).

The young, in-shape women who is actually unattractive is a very rare thing.

For a woman, being a 5 or higher means the majority of men are naturally attracted to you.

So, if you are a women looking to find a husband, develop your inner beauty. Be happy, be positive, be energetic, and don’t get fat or be a slut.

****

To bring this to a more abstract, ideological level, this is one of the problems with feminism; feminism actively tries to destroy inner beauty.

They encourage fat acceptance, sluttiness, and bad attitude.

I’ve already written about fat acceptance here, re-read that.

As for sluttiness, Tracy’s new piece shows you exactly what they are encouraging there. Hardly the time of women that would be a classy, nice girl to show off to family. Radish Mag has a nice long piece on this as well.

As for bad attitudes, feminists are actively campaigning against being happy and smiling. They believe smiling is tyranny and have started a campaign called “Don’t tell me to smile”. They revel in their “bitch faces“. The possible examples are endless, but its obvious the feminists are opposed to being “positive, energetic, enthusiastic, and upbeat” or anyone encouraging the same.

So, to any women looking to get married, avoid any feminist advice, for men are looking for exactly the opposite.

****

For just one example of how feminists destroy inner beauty, we’ll take RoK’s ugliest feminist, Lindy West (trigger warning: Lindy West):

She’s obviously very unattractive, but if you look closer you can tell she has good skin and no major deformities. If we see a picture of her smiling (even if it a kinda fake smile) and hiding her fat , she jumps physically from a 2-3 to a 4:

If she lost weight and put on a positive attitude she could probably easy jump form the ugly range to the attractive range. Even so, just physically speaking she’s not the physically ugliest person I’ve seen, but her ugliness is not from her physicality, it flows from her inner self. Because she follows feminist dogma she will keep herself fat, she will continue to display a bitchy face, and her inner ugliness will continue to glower through.

As the top commenter on the RoK article stated:

These women are rotten to the core. That’s why Roosh picked them. They’re miserable, cynical, pessimistic, angry, and offer nothing of substance. They’re physical appearance was just icing on the cake. They’re ugly through and through.

It’s her inner ugliness that truly makes her repulsive.

When I wrote of Tracy Flory-Clark a lot of men expressed repulsion to her. She’s kind of plain but not physically ugly:

With a more genuine smile and eyes that didn’t have the thousand-cock stare, she could probably be fairly attractive. It’s not her outer self that’s repulsive, it’s her inner self which manifests outwardly that makes her repulsive to men.

These feminists are not ugly because of what’s outside, they have an ugly inner core.

****

So, women, unless you want to be in line with the ugliest feminist in America, develop your inner beauty. It matters a lot.

Not to mention you’ll feel better about yourself as a happy, healthy, joyful, energetic person rather than a bitter, angry, hateful one.