Tag Archives: Tracy Clark-Flory

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.

1-10 Scale: An Analysis

Last week I wrote about the Archetypical Modern Women. It was my most popular post ever by views and was also one of my most commented posts as well. Most manospherians liked the post, but there was one common criticism that seemed  virtually unanimous: I overrated the woman, she was not a 7. The consensus seemed to be she was a 5, although a couple commented she was a 3 or even lower.

I explained my reasoning in the comments: “she’s thin, young-ish with a moderately cute face. She’s not beautiful, but a youngish, plain sort of pretty with a slim build would fit my definition of a 7.”

I generally don’t use the scale in real life; in fact, I can not remember ever having using it in RL, but there’s a small possibility I have. In normal conversation, the scale is kind of silly; the descriptors of beautiful, cute, unattractive, etc. are usually more than good enough and are more humanizing. (That and a numerical scale sounds sort of spergy, and I have enough problems with that as it is).

On the other hand, I occasionally use it on the blog as it is a simple comparative method; more human descriptor cans be open to interpretation and can have different meanings. While a numerical scale at least gives the illusion of objectivity.

But after the criticism of my assigning the label 7 I wanted to figure this out, my inner data nerd was aroused, so I’m going to analyze this more. I’ll warn you now, this is going to get spergy and is going to be dehumanizingly analytical.

Oh, and before I begin, Truthmosis at RotK has a post up on the scale that I came across while writing this. Check it out.

I’d also like to point out that, to some degree, beauty is subjective, so a numerical scale is not the be-all-end-all of female beauty. There are certain objective metrics of beauty: a 0.7 hip-to-waist ratio, symmetry, and other such indicators of fertility and health, that (almost) all men are naturally drawn towards. These can be a basis for an “objective” 1-10 scale.

But outside of that, there are numerous subjective factors on which men disagree. For example, I really like fair-skinned, light-haired, innocent-looking women (ie. cute women) and detest tattoos and piercings. A tongue piercing disgusts me and is an automatic 3-point drop. So, if I were to rate a woman with a tongue piercing a 5, others who don’t find it disgusting, might rate that woman an 8. Another example: I’ve never figured out why the Captain likes Jennifer Aniston or many men like Angelina Jolie; never seen the appeal.

Anyway, with that caveat out of the way, here we go.

****

The first thing to do when creating a scale is decide the system the scale will use. The two major ones are the bell curve and the decile system. Men as a whole tend to use a bell curve system (on a 5-point scale), but I’ve tended to think in a decile system.

In a normal bell curve system (and looks would be normally distributed) a scale would be related to standard deviation. In standard deviation, 68% of all women would fall within one standard deviation from the mean, while 95% of all women would fall within two, and 99% would fall within three.

In a 1-10 scale 5 would be the mean. Most like we’d use 2 sigma (SD:2.5) above the mean to signify a 10 and 2 sigma below to signify a 0. 1 sigma would make far too many 10s, and 3 sigmas would mean only 2% of woman are above a 7+.

A 2 sigma scale would mean means that about 2% of woman would be 10s and 2% would be 0s. About 14% would be 7.5-9.5s and another 14% of woman would be 0.5-2.5s. The vast majority of woman (68%) would be 2.5s-7.5s.

We could also use a 2 sigma to signify 1s and 9s (SD:2). On this scale 2% of woman would be 9+ and another 2% would be below <1. 14% of woman would be 7-9 and another 14% of woman would be 1-3. The large majority of woman (68%) would be 3-7s.

If I were to use a bell curve, the latter is likely the one I would use because no one uses 0 on the 1-10 looks scale and many think (and I agree) that there are no 10s. Limits could easily be put at .1 and 9.9 without negatively effecting the rest of the scale. Not to mention the use of whole numbers rather than decminals greatly simplifies the scale.

So, if we’re scaling women’s looks on a 1-10 (Mean:5, SD:2) we can use a stanine scale to find the proportion of woman at each number.

On the other hand, if we use a decile system 10% of women would be 1s, 10% would be 10s, etc.

The former is more useful for statistical calculation, the latter is easier to use for everyday talk. It is a lot easier to calculate: she’s a 10 because she’s in the top 10% of people, she’s a nine because she’s in the 80-90% range, etc. than it is to calculate: she’s a 9 because she’s 2 SD above the mean and is in the top 4% of woman.

In more practical immediate effect, the former will result in a lot of 4-6s and few 1s and 9s, while the latter will result in an even distribution of all types of woman.

****

Knowing this, how can we systematize the calculation of where an individual woman falls on this scale. That”s likely impossible because beauty is to some degree subjective, but we can give it a shot. This analysis will focus on adult women of child-bearing age because menopausal women are no longer sexually attractive.

In the US 32% of women aged 20-39 are obese. If we used the decile system, that would mean the obese take up all of 1s through 3s. If we used the bell curve, the obese take up 1-3 and most of the 4s as well.

But obesity is not the only indicator of unattractiveness, some women just have the bad luck to be born with a deformity of an extremely unattractive face. If, for simplicities sake, we estimated that 8% of women are simply born deformedly ugly (not unattractive or plain, just ugly), that means that on both scales 1-4s are made up of the deformed and fat.

So, simply not being obese or deformed would immediately make a woman a 5 in either scale.

Back to weight, in addition to the the obese are the overweight. 64% of adult women are either obese (BMI >= 30) (36%) or overweight (BMI of 25-29.9) (28%), so we’ll assume the 28% overweight rate hold for women 20-39. So, we now have 60% of women aged 20-39 who are overweight or fat, but let’s remove 5 percentage points because the BMI does sometimes classify fit people with muscle as being overweight. So about 55% of child-bearing age woman are unattractive due to be overweight or obese.

I can not find any numbers on the percentage of woman that are unattractive due to face alone, so I’ll have to make up some assumptions. Let’s assume, for the sake of ease, that 10% of women who are not fat, have faces that are unattractive enough, that a moderately fat woman with a decent face would rate higher on a scale.

With that assumption we now come to 65% of women are either fat or as unattractive as a fat woman.

(Check out this BMI visualizer to understand what is meant by overweight and obese).

In a decile scale that means that a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 7; in a normal distribution scale a woman who is not fat or equally unattractive is automatically a 6.

This gives us a starting base.

I do not have the time or ability to start messing around with the ins and outs of symmetry, eye size, distance between the eyes and mouth, and all the other micro-variations that distinguish beauty. Suffice to say though that most men can tell objective beauty of these micro-variations fairly easily.

So, we can assume they’d mostly agree.

****

Based on this here’s a 1-10 scale we can use based on the decile system.

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat or ugly
6: Chubby with a cute face or unattractive
7: Plain, not fat
8: Somewhat attractive
9: Slim and pretty
10: Curvy and beautiful

Here’s on based upon normal distribution:

1-4: Obese and/or deformedly ugly
5: Fat, chubby with an unattractive face, or ugly
6: Plain, not fat or chubby with a cute face
7: Slim and pretty
8: Curvy and beautiful
9: The best of the best (very rare)
10: Does not exist

The normal distribution lumps the middling and moderately attractive categories together but allows for the distinguishment of the really beautiful from the beautiful, while the decile scale allows for more distinguishment from the middling, but lumps all the beautiful together under 10.  The decile system leaves more distinguishment in those of middling beauty, but lumps the good looking into 2 categories.

From the impression I get from people write on the manosphere, they seem to use the normal distribution system. If we go back to Truthmosis’ discussion of the topic we can see that his scale more or less matches the normal distribution, as does his picture scale.

So, I guess I should start using the normal distribution scale to match up with others around here.

****

Anyway, back to the women who started this discussion:

As we can see, she’d probably be plain, not fat. So, my initial impression of her as a 7 on the decile system was correct. If we used a normal distribution she’d be a 6.

Someone ranking her a 5 is implying she’s ugly, which I do not think this picture supports. Whoever ranked her as a 3 is just dead wrong; she’s neither obese nor deformedly ugly.

****

A few last notes:

I knew the obesity crisis was bad, but I was surprised that 64% of adult women and 74% of adult men are overweight. That’s just plain nuts.

Also, only about 40% of women would be attractive enough to be worth even considering marrying (not even including other factors). So, if you’re looking to marry, make sure you’re in the top 40% of men or you’re going to end up with someone fat or unattractive.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my spergy little analysis.

The Archetypal Modern Woman

I think we now have the physical incarnation of the manosphere archetype of The Modern Woman. From this point on, when someone wonders what the manosphere means by the modern woman, we have a specific person we can point to.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: Tracy Clark-Flory.

You may have heard of her before, but the dude did not take my advice to RUN NOW, so the story just got better. But before I get to that, I’m going to outline exactly how she makes the perfect archetype of the modern woman.

We can start with the double-name, which came pre-marriage, suggesting she comes from a feminist line. She has your typical worthless degree (BA in English from a Californian liberal arts college) and a job at the liberal rag Salon writing about sex and relationships.  We can see from her profile picture above that she was fairly good-looking, a solid 7 (Edit: This rating was controversial, read here for more).

That’s a good start, but it gets ever so much more entertaining.

During her pretty years, she spent her youth on hooking-up and casual relationships. In her owns words, at 24 she “had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships,” but she’s not a slut as she “never had a one-night stand, only several-nights stands.” She passionately defended the hook-up culture arguing it never hurt her going through guys like she was “making an enthusiastic check mark next to every box” on “the Career Center’s job placement questionnaire.

She did indeed have fun times in her youth, but they did not last. A couple of years later, she still defends the hook-up culture and encourages one night stands, but she softens saying, “maybe we’re beginning to also allow ourselves more nuanced feelings about our hookups.  Like Klausner and Anderson, we can now acknowledge regret over a one-night stand, without being considered, or seeing ourselves as, forever ruined women…”

Just a year later, she begins to express second thoughts about casual sex, stating that most people find friends with benefits relationships to be “overwhelmingly negative.” “At some point [she] realized that, despite [her] insistence otherwise, [she] actually wanted those sorts of intimacies, only with an actual commitment.”

Her descent into absolute sluttery isn’t quite done yet though. Two years later, in 2012, she sees her favourite male porn star in a bar, and decide she has to fuck him. So she does. The sex is the narssicistic, hollow, rote sex one would expect from such an encounter:

It’s exactly what I had breathlessly watched him do many times before, but this time it seemed mechanical and theatrical. Instead of being entertained, I was doing the entertaining, and I suspect he was too — but for whom, exactly? We were the only audience.”

“Despite the emptiness of it, [she] felt a sense of accomplishment over my conquest.” Yet, a little while later she begins to question herself and “began to feel shameful”, “What kind of man will want to be with a woman who’s slept with a male porn star?”

But don’t worry, her hollow, meaningless sex had meaning and made her a better person. She now has “a whole new appreciation for the difference between fantasy and reality, and how much sexier the latter can be when you aren’t striving for pornographic perfection.”

By pure coincidence, “not too long thereafter I got into a relationship with just such a guy.” This had absolutely nothing with the the profound sadness and hollowness she felt from her “conquest”.

At this point she’s careening towards the wall face-first:

The combination of aging and her empty experience with the porn star send her into a frenzy of self-introspection. She realized she “spent her twenties having lots of good sex, but faked her way through nearly every climax.” She “now climax[es] reliably, sometimes even effortlessly, with Steve [which] seems nothing short of a miracle.” She finds out she likes having relationships, even ones which grow out of hook-ups.

Realizing that she likes relationships, she then does exactly what every modern women does when faced with age and emptiness, starts demanding “real courtship.” Just half a year after she shags a male pornstar on the first night and writes about her awesome relationship with Steve, she finds a new beau. But this one is different, this beta boy doesn’t start with hook-ups, like Steve, no, he brings her aging self flowers. She is “shocked to find that traditional courtship is pretty great.” Yay for her.

But unlike the porn star or Steve, beta boy does not get sex that same night. Nope, beta boy is special and “there’s a specialness in waiting until you’re comfortable enough with someone to get naked together while totally sober.” Beta boy has to work for what she gave the rest of the world so freely. He had to go on five dates, pay for big meals, pick her up in a cab, etc. before he got what McPornstar and Steve got for being available in a bar.

With her newfound love of traditional courtship (ie. making beta boy earn her sex and love), she then starts trying to convince everyone that men love relationships, but dislike casual sex, because that would be convenient would it not?

Recently, we found at she has a happy ending to her tale. She’s getting married to beta boy and is talking about becoming a mommy. In a shocking twist, it turns out beta boy was actually  someone she first met “around the same time that I wrote that first hookup essay.”

Looks like beta boy’s been pining away for five years and finally made good (after she spent the last of her youth on dozens of other men).

She could have had his love the whole time, but “even if [she] could, [she] wouldn’t in a million years go back and shake [her] 23-year-old self and tell her that she’d already met her future fiancé.” She just loves her memories of empty fucks with pornstars and her relationship with Steve far too much to give them up for boring old love with beta boy.

But this is good for beta boy because she “would have loved him the same.” Why her “hookup years made [her] more accepting of [her] fiancé’s imperfections.” Can’t you just feel the love she has for him.

Having had her alpha fux and having secured her beta bux, she is still encouraging other women to follow in her path. Her story is a “reminder that the hookup hand-wringers are wrong, and not to be trusted.” It’s a story of true love winning out; young women can fuck whoever they want and still end up with a pliable beta to pay for their children.

****

So, in a nutshell, Tracy Clark-Flory is the the stereotypical, nay, archetypical, modern woman. She fucks uncountable alphas, ignoring the beta who likes her, throughout her years of youth and prettiness. She realizes how empty it all is, but only once the wall approaches and the good times are coming to an end, so she uses the last of her fading feminine charms to husband-up the barely tolerable beta.

All that’s needed now is her complaints about how beta boy won’t divide the chores properly, followed by a story of how she’s falling out of love with him, followed by her divorce within the decade. Then there will be stories about how being a single mother is hard, how dating as a single mother is hard, and how there are no good men left.

If we’re lucky (and beta boy isn’t) there might even be a hilarious story of how she pined for Steve throughout the years of her marriage to beta boy.

So, whenever someone demands an example of alpha fux/beta bux, or wonders what we mean by the modern woman, we only need to point them to this post.

Here’s to you Tracy Clark-Flory, you are the Archetype of the Modern Woman!

You won the mating game. You got the alpha fux and have almost attained the beta bux. To you we raise up a rousing course of “da professional womenz ode.”

****

I’ll say it one last time, just in case he comes across this:

To the guy marrying Tracy: RUN AWAY. Run as hard and as fast as you can before you are legally bound to her. Do it; this will not end well for you. I hope, for your sake, you find this and take heed my warning. If you don’t lulz will be had at your expense in the future.

****

A lot of the information was cribbed from Susan and Vox.